Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Theism and Atheism => Topic started by: bluehillside Retd. on May 15, 2016, 02:27:54 PM
-
The term "antitheism" is used here fairly often, albeit mistakenly. Antitheism is the opposition to gods, generally on the basis that they (or belief in them) is thought to be positively harmful. In principle therefore it's possible to be both a theist and an antitheist - ie, you think there to be a god (or gods) but would really prefer it/them not be real, or for people who do think them to be real not to practice their religions.
So far as I recall though there rarely if ever has been a thread promoting antitheism on this mb, and while some atheists here may also happen to be antitheists (I am for example) our antitheism is no more relevant to arguments of fact than, say, our stamp collecting habits.
In other words we have basic category error here. Theism/atheism concerns whether the claimed facts about gods are true or not; antitheism on the other hand concerns whether some want those claimed facts to be true or not.
Just thought I'd clear that up.
-
The term "antitheism" is used here fairly often, albeit mistakenly.
Yes I understand there is similar misuse of the word crap where some people are using it as synonymous to ordure rather than its real meaning of magnificent atheistic writing.
-
Why is this on the Christian board?
-
I think I have to count myself as a definite anti-theist, but bearing in mind the many thousands of years that theism has been, and still is, around, there is little of practical use that I can do except to post here and there and belong to the BHA and NSS.
-
The whole idea that theism is somehow a cause rather than simply an effect by anyone who is atheist to be simply bizarre. If there is no god then it's simply a manifestation of our natures, and one based on a number of things that are useful to us. Removing whatever it is about us that causes it would change us to such an extent that we could have no idea of the outcome.
-
I think I have to count myself as a definite anti-theist, but bearing in mind the many thousands of years that theism has been, and still is, around, there is little of practical use that I can do except to post here and there and belong to the BHA and NSS.
How will membership of those two organisations help, Susan? If the weight of history is as overpowering as you seem to imply, won't they go the same way as other atheist organisations have down the centuries? ;)
-
How will membership of those two organisations help, Susan? If the weight of history is as overpowering as you seem to imply, won't they go the same way as other atheist organisations have down the centuries? ;)
What atheist organisations have there been down the centuries, precisely?
-
Antitheism seems very strident. Why can't people just not believe? No-one would bother them in this day and age. On here maybe but not in real life.
(BHA is also the British Homeopathic Association, I was on their site today. Just looking.)
I knew a very nice lady who was a prominent humanist when I was a teenager, she may be still alive but she was a good twenty years older than me then. She was very active in the peace movement - Barbara Smoker.
-
Antitheism seems very strident. Why can't people just not believe?
That would be fine but for the fact that religion can be entwined in politics - to the extent of being an established state church, sometimes - and some religious adherents seek to impose their beliefs on others via the law. Any 'stridency' is simply other people objecting to that.
P.S. Barbara Smoker is still alive I believe at 93.
-
Antitheism seems very strident. Why can't people just not believe? No-one would bother them in this day and age. On here maybe but not in real life.
(BHA is also the British Homeopathic Association, I was on their site today. Just looking.)
I knew a very nice lady who was a prominent humanist when I was a teenager, she may be still alive but she was a good twenty years older than me then. She was very active in the peace movement - Barbara Smoker.
I have just looked her up, having never heard of her, the peace movement not being my thing. She is 92 and still alive.
-
What atheist organisations have there been down the centuries, precisely?
The Hellfire club?
-
That would be fine but for the fact that religion can be entwined in politics - to the extent of being an established state church, sometimes - and some religious adherents seek to impose their beliefs on others via the law. Any 'stridency' is simply other people objecting to that.
P.S. Barbara Smoker is still alive I believe at 93.
Bless, she was very well respected, I suppose she still is. She came from a strong Catholic background and wanted to be a nun when she left school but her mother said she needed to wait a while to be sure so she joined the Navy. One of ten children, one of whom did become a nun. It figures.
She was older than I thought when I was 15/16.
I know all about the established church, funnily enough I was watching something on TV earlier about the strong influence it had in earlier times when Cosmo Lang was AofC and Edward Vlll was wanting to marry a divorcee.
I can't see it lasting though Shaker and Prince Charles has always said he wants disestablishment. His heir and daughter-in-law will be modern Anglicans I think. I am in favour of disestablishment too, I don't believe there needs to be an official church but I do like quite a lot about the CofE. So we shall see.
-
Antitheism seems very strident. Why can't people just not believe? No-one would bother them in this day and age. On here maybe but not in real life.
Are you happy, then, for generations of children to be taught that something, which is entirely without objective evidence, is true?
-
Are you happy, then, for generations of children to be taught that something, which is entirely without objective evidence, is true?
Morals are without objective evidence, should we not teach morals to children?
-
I was of course referring to a god of any sort!
-
Are you happy, then, for generations of children to be taught that something, which is entirely without objective evidence, is true?
Children are not taught that now Susan, certainly won't be in the future. Apparently Religion and Ethics is the subject now, not RE like we had (or I had). Optional too, no two compulsory sessions a week. I'd have really loved that but not to worry, I can discuss on here.
-
Children are not taught that now Susan, certainly won't be in the future. Apparently Religion and Ethics is the subject now, not RE like we had (or I had). Optional too, no two compulsory sessions a week. I'd have really loved that but not to worry, I can discuss on here.
Except they are in certain schools.
-
Brownie,
Antitheism seems very strident. Why can't people just not believe? No-one would bother them in this day and age. On here maybe but not in real life.
Short answer (as given by Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens I think): 9/11.
Longer answer - for the most part, if the religions treated their opinions as personal and their organisations as private members clubs, most atheists I think wouldn't bother with them at all, any more than any of us do with the flat earth society. The problem though comes when the religious park their tanks on the lawns of the rest of us and arrogate to themselves rights and privileges because of the personal faiths. And it's that behaviour for the most part that sparks antitheism.
Of course misdescribing atheist argument as antitheist argument here is just a category error as I explained in the OP, but there it is nonetheless.
-
Children are not taught that now Susan, certainly won't be in the future. Apparently Religion and Ethics is the subject now, not RE like we had (or I had). Optional too, no two compulsory sessions a week. I'd have really loved that but not to worry, I can discuss on here.
If there is a lesson in schools specifically referring to religion as per the first word of the title Religious Education, it automatically affords undue importance to the subject, 'religion', how would you like to see U E 'unionism Education' as a singled out subject?
Unionism is probably more important than religion but it still shouldn't be given any sort of privileged place anywhere in the school curriculum, perhaps teach how to think for yourselves combined with the humanities.
ippy
-
Antitheism seems very strident. Why can't people just not believe?
Many people do. I tend to think that if it wasn't religion human nature would find something else as justification for harm, control and all the things which antitheists seem unhappy about.
-
Many people do. I tend to think that if it wasn't religion human nature would find something else as justification for harm, control and all the things which antitheists seem unhappy about.
We already do. It's why the Steven Weinberg quote about it taking religion to make good people do evi has always been nonsense.
-
Except they are in certain schools.
Faith schools. Yet state faith schools now have to take people of different or no faith, so I am told. People seem to jump through hoops to get their kids into them too.
The Orthodox Jewish schools remain Orthodox Jewish, no-one changes them or complains about them even though their standard of general education is quite poor, especially for the boys whose main focus is Torah and Talmud. The girls do a bit better.
There's an Islamic college near me, set back in the woods. It's been there for years but is unobtrusive. I wonder what they teach? It's only for boys I think.
Here it is: http://www.educationbase.co.uk/Darul-Uloom-London-Islamic-School-Chislehurst,CC1802
Daily Mail article (I didn't know they did such a long day, flipping heck):
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1288053/Inside-Muslim-Eton-Their-day-starts-3-45am-goes-disciplined-20-hours-Their-aim-produce-Muslim-elite-leaders-.html
I really didn't know it was so elite and so strict. Sometimes you see the boys going to the shops in the village but the building is way back from the road and there are playing fields nearby, belonging to other schools like Eltham College.
-
We already do. It's why the Steven Weinberg quote about it taking religion to make good people do evi has always been nonsense.
At best removing religion might reduce the tendency. It's possible that people x would not only not do y but would not do anything at all. The question is whether whatever replaced it drives others to do something else.
-
At best removing religion might reduce the tendency. It's possible that people x would not only not do y but would not do anything at all. The question is whether whatever replaced it drives others to do something else.
Again the problem is as mentioned earlier 'removing religion' if you are an atheist only makes sense as meaning changing what humans are to such an extent that it becomes a pointless question.
-
Again the problem is as mentioned earlier 'removing religion' if you are an atheist only makes sense as meaning changing what humans are to such an extent that it becomes a pointless question.
Yes, I understand, but is there anything other than religion that offers an afterlife? Because that seems to me up be a pretty big driver in a lot of what we see.
-
Yes, I understand, but is there anything other than religion that offers an afterlife? Because that seems to me up be a pretty big driver in a lot of what we see.
It doesn't offer things in that way. It's an expression of our desires. I don't think that the after life itself is the driver here even as a desire rather it is a question of justice. We can see that our world is unjust so how can we make that palatable.
-
stop thinking about God .......or gods..........or the gods.
Is that a sensible or healthy commandment?
-
It doesn't offer things in that way. It's an expression of our desires. I don't think that the after life itself is the driver here even as a desire rather it is a question of justice. We can see that our world is unjust so how can we make that palatable.
Excellent points........Here is a question...........Why is injustice so unpalatable?
-
Brownie,
Short answer (as given by Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens I think): 9/11.
But to conclude its religion that is the root of all evil isn't the only conclusion.
There is the conclusion that this is intrinsic in all humanity.....that it is part of the human potential.
This conclusion fits the facts better I would have thought.
-
It doesn't offer things in that way. It's an expression of our desires. I don't think that the after life itself is the driver here even as a desire rather it is a question of justice. We can see that our world is unjust so how can we make that palatable.
Then you haven't spent enough time with those for whom salvation is the only thing that matters - seeing life from a 'heavenly perspective'. It's how homophobia within the church is often justified, saving the soul of the 'sinner'.
-
Excellent points........Here is a question...........Why is injustice so unpalatable?
We don't know exactly save to say that a sense of justice/injustice and fairness/unfairness is built into us. Toddlers have it. Hell, chimpanzees have it, which is is precisely what we'd expect.
Theory of mind has to play a large, maybe even the major part in it - seeing another ape getting the shitty end of the stick doesn't impact upon me directly and immediately, but if I have a brain large and complex enough to be able to imagine how I would feel if I were in that position, and therefore I feel bad for the other ape who is in that position even if I personally am not ... there's your inchoate sense of justice. Not-me-but-I-know-how-I'd-feel-if-it-was-me - that's empathy, and that's the beginnings of justice, AFAICS.
It needn't have been this way. We could have hung on to the reptilian brain. Scared? Well, so what. Just been raped? Not my problem, I haven't been. About to be eaten alive? I'm not in that position so pull the ladder up, Jack - somebody else's problem.
But we're not like that.
Or at least, only those we regard as very badly damaged indeed are like that. The vast majority of us are fashioned differently.
-
I've been a (horrified) party to a conversation that went something like this:
Bereaved woman; is my mum in heaven?
Vicar: no, sorry
Bereaved woman: but she was a nice person
Vicar: tough shit. She wasn't a Christian. Still, look on the bright side. You are.
-
Excellent points........Here is a question...........Why is injustice so unpalatable?
We are capable of empathy.
We are also capable of making up shit in order to enable us to feel better when we wonder where all the calculators go.
-
We are capable of empathy.
We are also capable of making up shit in order to enable us to feel better when we wonder where all the calculators go.
It took you a few words to say what it took me nearly two hundred to say. So it goes ::)
-
I've been a (horrified) party to a conversation that went something like this:
Bereaved woman; is my mum in heaven?
Vicar: no, sorry
Bereaved woman: but she was a nice person
Vicar: tough shit. She wasn't a Christian. Still, look on the bright side. You are.
Who the fuck was that vicar? >:(
-
Who the fuck was that vicar? >:(
He ran a web forum with his missus. And he really was a vicar - CofE.
I wasn't popular there and ended up being chased from the streets with burning brands.
-
It took you a few words to say what it took me nearly two hundred to say. So it goes ::)
At least you managed yours without referencing an averagely funny sci fi sitcom.
-
Nearly,
We already do. It's why the Steven Weinberg quote about it taking religion to make good people do evi has always been nonsense.
Why is it nonsense? I agree that it's too narrowly drawn - "dogmatism" rather than religion specifically would have made the point better - but the thrust of the argument stands: the moment someone thinks that in no circumstance could he be wrong, then otherwise good people will tend to do bad things.
-
NS,
Again the problem is as mentioned earlier 'removing religion' if you are an atheist only makes sense as meaning changing what humans are to such an extent that it becomes a pointless question.
So how would you feel about removing religion and replacing is with scepticism as an alternative?
-
Rhi,
Yes, I understand, but is there anything other than religion that offers an afterlife? Because that seems to me up be a pretty big driver in a lot of what we see.
But surely the point is that religion doesn't actually offer an afterlife at all - just the bonkers promise of it if you follow the rules. Wouldn't teaching rationalism and scepticism help give the lie to that supposed offer?
-
The whole idea that theism is somehow a cause rather than simply an effect by anyone who is atheist to be simply bizarre. If there is no god then it's simply a manifestation of our natures, and one based on a number of things that are useful to us. Removing whatever it is about us that causes it would change us to such an extent that we could have no idea of the outcome.
I don't quite see what you're suggesting. We can't change human nature but we seem to have, at least in many parts of the world, successfully grown out of (for example) burning unfortunate women as witches, so I don't see why we couldn't eventually grow out of religion more generally.
Surely irrational beliefs, like religion and other superstitions, are to be discouraged?
-
Rhi,
But surely the point is that religion doesn't actually offer an afterlife at all - just the bonkers promise of it if you follow the rules. Wouldn't teaching rationalism and scepticism help give the lie to that supposed offer?
I'm not disagreeing. But it's not what a lot of people seem to want. It seems many want at least the hope of an afterlife of some kind; religion offers certainty.
-
I'm not disagreeing. But it's not what a lot of people seem to want. It seems many want at least the hope of an afterlife of some kind; religion offers certainty.
I wonder why people wish for an afterlife?
-
Because this one is such rubbish?
-
I wonder why people wish for an afterlife?
Start a thread on it. I think it could be interesting.
-
Except they are in certain schools.
Secularising all schools would lead to a more homogeneous population, I think it's the only way.
ippy
-
Because this one is such rubbish?
For me I'd want one that was the good bits of this but without the bad. I think in particular people struggle with the ending of relationships and want those to continue.
-
I wonder why people wish for an afterlife?
Apart from the desire to have any kind of existence continue no matter how miserable (up to a point, however), the hope for ultimate justice has a lot to do with it, I think.
After all, If I'm right and there's no restorative and retributive afterlife where everybody gets their desserts according to their behaviour, all those Nazi war criminals who skipped off to other countries after WWII and lived long lives, or unidentified murderers (for example) simply got away with it scot free. Starving children who live short and miserable lives of pain and hunger know only pain and hunger in the world and then die. Human justice is flawed: it doesn't always find the right people, or sometimes it finds the wrong people and punishes them instead. That's not an easy thing to swallow - yet we have to be on our guard against taking what we would prefer to be the case as actually being the case. However understandable, that's just wishful thinking. We naturally want the good boys and girls to get a gold star and a sweetie, and the naughty ones to get detention and lines. In real life that's simply not always possible, so the principle is extended beyond death where many people have wanted to believe that someone (or something) will take care of what couldn't be done in life.
-
The notion of restorative justice doesn't bother me. Maybe it should.
Loss is the hardest thing for me, but it has to be faced. Because of events in my family I've always been acutely aware that life can turn on a sixpence, even more so since having children in not the easiest of circumstances. To not be able to face loss would mean not loving them, or anyone. And I prefer my world with as much love in it as possible.
-
The notion of restorative justice doesn't bother me. Maybe it should.
Loss is the hardest thing for me, but it has to be faced. Because of events in my family I've always been acutely aware that life can turn on a sixpence, even more so since having children in not the easiest of circumstances. To not be able to face loss would mean not loving them, or anyone. And I prefer my world with as much love in it as possible.
I'll go with that Rhi.
My brother was over here recently from Australia, we were all outside sitting in the garden just talking general family and my youngest son the rebel hard man now 35yrs was expressing his love of family to my brother, much to my delight in front of my bro, while my bro and I both have a high regard for each other my bro isn't quite as open as I am, he's a bit old fashioned, I've always encouraged my boys to say whatever they feel when the time is right and both of my boys still kiss their Dad, as I think it should be in any loving family, why not?
ippy
-
NS,
So how would you feel about removing religion and replacing is with scepticism as an alternative?
I'll try and cover the question on Weinberg along with this.
The problem is, as already raised, I am not sure what 'replacing religion' can mean for atheists. It is an outcome in most atheists views. Looking at it as a cause of a type of behaviour, particularly when one cherry picks that it is the cause of one type of behaviour, evil, as opposed to all behaviour carried out it in it's name is both illogical and hypocritical.
It's not a software app, it's an action determined by other apps such as pattern recognition, empathy, altruism, self interest and tribal connection - though I'm using a coarse analogy here since describing those instincts as separate is incorrect.
I am also not convinced that in any form of analysis religion and skepticism are in the same category here. It seems religion is a fairly clear description of what must in a straight deterministic or random and determinism combination be a some outcome. Skepticism might better be seen as a common description of a determined method of thought.
To link back to the Weinberg, it seems to me that given it effectively ignores certain types of 'motivation' (which I think are not motivations for the reasons above and earlier in thread), once you look at the wider picture you see clearly that this 'motivation' is merely a form of self jystification. As to whether you need to be certain to commit evil, that seems untrue. If we take the 'good' Germans helping support genocide, I find it unlikely that they were all convinced to the same extent which is what certainty would entail being an absolute.
In addition this idea of 'good' people is a simplistic approach to morality. Even allowing for a sort of meaning as going against what they would normally do, it misses that a consequential might often do that since the 'normally' implies a form of analysis that doesn't fit with consequentialism.
-
I don't quite see what you're suggesting. We can't change human nature but we seem to have, at least in many parts of the world, successfully grown out of (for example) burning unfortunate women as witches, so I don't see why we couldn't eventually grow out of religion more generally.
Surely irrational beliefs, like religion and other superstitions, are to be discouraged?
Morality can be internally rational but must be based on irrationality as it's an ought not an is. As Hume covered it is as rational to prefer the destruction of the world to the pricing of my thumb. Desire, what we want to happen is irrational. I can want to commit genocide and plan it as coolly rationally as they did at Wannsee. These things are outcomes not causes, something which you, given your clear arguments that there is only determinism, or determinism with random aspects, needs surely to accept?
-
Secularising all schools would lead to a more homogeneous population, I think it's the only way.
ippy
I'm all behind secularising schools, just not so keen on the homogeneous aim.
-
NS,
I'll try and cover the question on Weinberg along with this.
The problem is, as already raised, I am not sure what 'replacing religion' can mean for atheists. It is an outcome in most atheists views.
Well, just to clarify the question first I was thinking here of “religion” in the faith school sense – ie, teaching faith beliefs as if they were facts – rather than the RE sense of “this is what various denominations believe”. What replacing the former would mean for the atheist – as for anyone else – would simply be not teaching these things as if they were facts. I’d also suggest using the freed up time to teach scepticism, rational enquiry and the importance of uncertainty.
Looking at it as a cause of a type of behaviour, particularly when one cherry picks that it is the cause of one type of behaviour, evil, as opposed to all behaviour carried out it in it's name is both illogical and hypocritical.
It probably would be, yes. That’s not the argument though – after all, someone may have a faith belief that drives him to do entirely benign things, just as a stopped clock is right twice a day. Rather the argument is that, by privileging “faith” as a reliable guide to objective truths, religious teaching institutionalises a false validity which – on balance – will lead to more bad outcomes than to good ones. There are various reasons for that, but the most obvious perhaps is that faith beliefs involve certainty – they cannot change and evolve in the way that, say, the findings of science can as new facts and ways of reasoning emerge.
It's not a software app, it's an action determined by other apps such as pattern recognition, empathy, altruism, self interest and tribal connection - though I'm using a coarse analogy here since describing those instincts as separate is incorrect.
I’m not sure where this is going, but yes – religious beliefs can involve all those things and more. That doesn’t though help the underlying problem of favouring faith over reason.
I am also not convinced that in any form of analysis religion and skepticism are in the same category here. It seems religion is a fairly clear description of what must in a straight deterministic or random and determinism combination be a some outcome. Skepticism might better be seen as a common description of a determined method of thought.
Well faith and scepticism are the issues, and they’re in the same category in that they represent different approaches to the same thing: discerning the more probably true from the more probably not true. That is, faith too is a “method of thought” in that the thought is that it’s a better way of discerning truths than just guessing.
To link back to the Weinberg, it seems to me that given it effectively ignores certain types of 'motivation' (which I think are not motivations for the reasons above and earlier in thread), once you look at the wider picture you see clearly that this 'motivation' is merely a form of self jystification.
But why “merely”? “But that’s my faith” is self-justification – unashamedly so – and that’s the problem we’re discussing. It’s used by suicide bombers and by vicars at garden fetes alike, so how should we argue against one but not against the other when each uses that rationale to justify and validate his beliefs?
As to whether you need to be certain to commit evil, that seems untrue. If we take the 'good' Germans helping support genocide, I find it unlikely that they were all convinced to the same extent which is what certainty would entail being an absolute.
I tend to the view that humankind is essentially altruistic (for good reasons of evolutionary advantage) – it’s instinctive, and so it takes a lot to override that. And if not for unquestioning, unchallengeable dogma what else would do it?
In addition this idea of 'good' people is a simplistic approach to morality. Even allowing for a sort of meaning as going against what they would normally do, it misses that a consequential might often do that since the 'normally' implies a form of analysis that doesn't fit with consequentialism.
You’ll need to clarify your meaning here please, but see above. By and large people basically are “good” – that’s the default, and we probably wouldn’t have survived the last 200,000 or so years if it were not so. Pattern recognition, the efficacy of narrative etc though also I think can override that when we abandon reason for faith: “the story makes sense to me, therefore it’s unfalsifiably correct”.
Something like that anyway.
-
By and large people basically are “good”
Objective evidence for that?
-
I’d also suggest using the freed up time to teach scepticism, rational enquiry and the importance of uncertainty.
Are you sure about that?
-
Objective evidence for that?
number of people who have been convicted of a crime vs number of those who have not?
-
To bhs, replying in kind doesn't make a whole lot of sense as we had a misunderstanding whereas I was interpreting religion as an a general concept, as theism, was in your OP, not the specific teaching of religion to be replaced. That means that the rest of your reply is generally about a misunderstanding.
To reiterate my position is that religion is a mere effect and as such talking about something being better or good in that context is an attempt to create an objectivity that you have no justification for. I'm actually pretty much in agreement with Vlad here.
Off for a lie down.
-
number of people who have been convicted of a crime vs number of those who have not?
People obeying law which has sanctions doesn't make them altruistic. Further since we benefit from cooperation, it is questionable as to whether it is a piece of game theory, or genuinely altruistic.
Even worse if we have a deterministic or determinism plus random events, the concept of altruism is meaningless.
Part of this is while Vlad and I don't actually agree as a relativist, I can see his point.
-
NS,
To bhs, replying in kind doesn't make a whole lot of sense as we had a misunderstanding whereas I was interpreting religion as an a general concept, as theism, was in your OP, not the specific teaching of religion to be replaced. That means that the rest of your reply is generally about a misunderstanding.
Then we were at cross-purposes - the discussion had moved on I thought so replied to that. Yes, on balance I do think that theism in general does more harm than good so that makes me an antitheist (the point being that it's a category error to mis-label someone as antitheist when they're talking about the factuality or otherwise of theistic claims, as opposed to whether you want those things to be true or not - a different matter entirely).
Why do I think it does more harm than good? Clearly you can't add up each example of religiously inspired good and bad deeds and compare the tallies, but the basic principle I think - that privileging faith beliefs over just guessing - will axiomatically lead to more bad outcomes than good ones for the same reason that any guessing-based epistemology demonstrably will do is clear enough.
To reiterate my position is that religion is a mere effect and as such talking about something being better or good in that context is an attempt to create an objectivity that you have no justification for. I'm actually pretty much in agreement with Vlad here.
Good grief man - are you sickening for something?
The point though is that we have to live in the world we appear to occupy, and so we have to devise ways of behaving to engage with that world. It's not necessary for that purpose to insist on an objectively positioned "good" or "bad", or indeed to argue that the consequences - fewer wars, less inequality, whatever - are themselves necessarily good or bad. All that's required is to say something like, "this is the world in which I'd like to live, and here in my view is the best way of achieving it" - one part of which in my opinion would be to get rid of faith schools. Whether anyone agrees or not is another matter entirely.
Off for a lie down.
Good idea. "Agree with Vlad" indeed. Good grief!
-
NS,
Yes, on balance I do think that theism in general does more harm than good so that makes me an antitheist (the point being that it's a category error to mis-label someone as antitheist when they're talking about the factuality or otherwise of theistic claims, as opposed to whether you want those things to be true or not - a different matter entirely).
I think were all at liberty to check the dictionary definition.
-
...
All that's required is to say something like, "this is the world in which I'd like to live, and here in my view is the best way of achieving it"
...
I'm just not understanding how this is any different to the ISIS approach or, ultimately, anyone else's.
-
I still don't see any justification for religion being a cause rather than an outcome. If you are an atheist that agrees with evolution, it cannot be anything other than an outcome.
-
As with all culture it is both: developed by the evolutionary process, but acting as a driver for further change.
-
Dear Blue and Sane,
Two of the greats bouncing off each other, I love it ;)
Anyway, tuppence worth, Blue old son, you mention words like certainty and uncetainty, certainty belongs in the mind of the mad, the delusional, the mind of the terrorist, who has been slapped, punched, beaten, watched his world destroyed by greed, injustice, his way of life threatened, his nation, his people, his family destroyed, all this creates certainty, he has been pushed to his certainty, sent mad, his religion or maybe his politicals play a small part.
To end, the more thoughtful theists on this forum will always tell you there is uncertainty, always doubt.
Gonnagle.
-
Udayama,
I'm just not understanding how this is any different to the ISIS approach or, ultimately, anyone else's.
The difference is that the rationalist is persuadable; the absolutist is not. This is old stuff: Jonathan Swift famously said:
"Reasoning will never make a Man correct an ill Opinion, which by Reasoning he never acquired"
(A Letter to a Young Gentleman, Lately Enter’d Into Holy Orders by a Person of Quality)
And the point about that is that, if I think that in principle at least I could be wrong, I'll tend to be more circumspect in my actions just in case - a concern that need not trouble the mind of the ISIS suicide bomber. Me, I'd have signs at airports: "Fast track security: atheists only"
-
NS,
I still don't see any justification for religion being a cause rather than an outcome. If you are an atheist that agrees with evolution, it cannot be anything other than an outcome.
But an outcome of what? If you think it to be a sort of mis-firing of our innate need for pattern and narrative to explain the otherwise inexplicable shouldn't we recognise that and seek to guard against it? Eliminate biases? Better a conspiracy than no theory at all it seems, and it creates cause/outcome loop doesn't it because even as an outcome it also causes people to do things that they otherwise might not and that are contrary to their nature.
-
Gonners,
Anyway, tuppence worth, Blue old son, you mention words like certainty and uncetainty, certainty belongs in the mind of the mad, the delusional, the mind of the terrorist, who has been slapped, punched, beaten, watched his world destroyed by greed, injustice, his way of life threatened, his nation, his people, his family destroyed, all this creates certainty, he has been pushed to his certainty, sent mad, his religion or maybe his politicals play a small part.
But it also exists in the mind of (for example) the person whose entire education consisted of chanting the Koran while clerics told him it was the only and the infallible truth.
To end, the more thoughtful theists on this forum will always tell you there is uncertainty, always doubt.
Is this the same (delightful by the way) Gonnagle who once told me long ago and far away that he could never be persuaded not to believe in God?
-
Udayama,
The difference is that the rationalist is persuadable; the absolutist is not. This is old stuff: Jonathan Swift famously said:
"Reasoning will never make a Man correct an ill Opinion, which by Reasoning he never acquired"
(A Letter to a Young Gentleman, Lately Enter’d Into Holy Orders by a Person of Quality)
And the point about that is that, if I think that in principle at least I could be wrong, I'll tend to be more circumspect in my actions just in case - a concern that need not trouble the mind of the ISIS suicide bomber. Me, I'd have signs at airports: "Fast track security: atheists only"
Possibly, but religion itself changes constantly (despite any beliefs that it does not) and need not mandate "absolutism". Reasoning only works where people have already agreed to accept some initial conditions as given.
I suspect the contrast here is not of "theist vs anti-theist" or "reasonable vs unreasonable" but one of personality. The ISIS bombers have adopted such extreme religious views because of aspects of their personality/psychology not because of religious instruction. They've sought out the absolutist views and instruction they want to hear and set about building the kind of world they want.
-
Dear Blue,
But it also exists in the mind of (for example) the person whose entire education consisted of chanting the Koran while clerics told him it was the only and the infallible truth.
Tis true, and you find the same in some Christian schools but lets stick with Islam ( they are in the spotlight just now ) I have listened to many Muslims in the media and the majority all seem to be well educated, erudite, knowledgable, their entire education cannot be just chanting the Koran and being told it is the infallible truth, and they like me probably doubt their religion, especially when they see it used for injustice.
Is this the same (delightful by the way) Gonnagle who once told me long ago and far away that he could never be persuaded not to believe in God?
Did I, probably right, sounds like something I would come out with, but I always have doubt, it keeps me reasonably sane. ;)
Gonnagle.
-
When I was a believer I couldn't be persuaded out of belief either, at least not by someone else, even though I had loads of doubts and questions. Unbelief comes through experience and being honest with yourself that what you once believed in isn't real for you anymore.
-
NS,
But an outcome of what? If you think it to be a sort of mis-firing of our innate need for pattern and narrative to explain the otherwise inexplicable shouldn't we recognise that and seek to guard against it? Eliminate biases? Better a conspiracy than no theory at all it seems, and it creates cause/outcome loop doesn't it because even as an outcome it also causes people to do things that they otherwise might not and that are contrary to their nature.
How can something that is a product of our natures cause us to do something against our natures?
-
Udayama,
Possibly, but religion itself changes constantly (despite any beliefs that it does not) and need not mandate "absolutism". Reasoning only works where people have already agreed to accept some initial conditions as given.
It's not so much about what certain religions happen to mandate at particular times, but rather that - by privileging faith beliefs over just guessing about stuff - it creates a paradigm of "if you have a really, really strong opinion on the matter then that opinion is right" without the safety net of an escape clause (Swift again). Yes, reasoning rests on axioms (as does everything else) but fewer of them (Occam) and moreover intersubjective experience helps at least avoid the everything goes relativism of the alternative.
I suspect the contrast here is not of "theist vs anti-theist" or "reasonable vs unreasonable" but one of personality. The ISIS bombers have adopted such extreme religious views because of aspects of their personality/psychology not because of religious instruction. They've sought out the absolutist views and instruction they want to hear and set about building the kind of world they want.
Does the faith make the monster or are monsters attracted to the faith? Personalty comes from somewhere so, aside from the clinically psychopathic, I'd argue the opposite - that dogmatic absolutism in early upbringing will tend to produce dogmatic absolutists. Of course we can't run the experiment - drop 1,000 babies from, say, a hard line Afghanistan madrassa into, say, nice liberal Sweden and then compare attitudes eighteen years later wit the control group of the 1,000 you left behind but it doesn't seem much of a stretch to me think there'd be significant differences in attitudes to, for example, Koranic punishments.
We are as a species inherently altruistic (as indeed are many other species - see Bill Hamilton for example) and it seems to me that there needs to be something actively to change that default - and that dogmatic belief married to draconian texts is a prime candidate.
-
We are surely also as a species inherently religious, as it didn't get beamed down from on high?
-
How can something that is a product of our natures cause us to do something against our natures?
Easily: our natures aren't indivisible, with only one aspect. They are the result of a jumble of evolutionary outcomes that often pull us in different directions. Very often we can find our emotions or 'gut' instincts at odds with our rationality. Our rational ability cannot stop our brains from 'seeing' faces in clouds and fires...
-
Dear Sane,
We are surely also as a species inherently religious, as it didn't get beamed down from on high?
That's what I have been saying!! We are a religious lot, maybe they will listen to you, they don't listen to me, my genius is not appreciated on this forum ::) ::)
Gonnagle.
-
Easily: our natures aren't indivisible, with only one aspect. They are the result of a jumble of evolutionary outcomes that often pull us in different directions. Very often we can find our emotions or 'gut' instincts at odds with our rationality. Our rational ability cannot stop our brains from 'seeing' faces in clouds and fires...
But it's all 'just' natural. And either determined, or determined with random bits.
-
Dear Sane,
That's what I have been saying!! We are a religious lot, maybe they will listen to you, they don't listen to me, my genius is not appreciated on this forum ::) ::)
Gonnagle.
I don't think that it means anything though, Gonzo. We are what we are. Insignificant, yet wondering.
-
Just to note my thanks to bhs for starting this thread. It's an interesting area of discussion in terms of how we approach theism.
-
NS,
But an outcome of what? If you think it to be a sort of mis-firing of our innate need for pattern and narrative to explain the otherwise inexplicable shouldn't we recognise that and seek to guard against it? Eliminate biases? Better a conspiracy than no theory at all it seems, and it creates cause/outcome loop doesn't it because even as an outcome it also causes people to do things that they otherwise might not and that are contrary to their nature.
I think what religion does very well is dress up atrocious behaviour as behaviour that is driven by concern and love. Therefore it becomes a loving act for parents to lock their trans children in their rooms or suggest that their gay offspring seek a 'cure'. If we think of something like the Rwandan massacre it's apparent that good neighbours don't need religion in order to hack each other to pieces; one thing that sets religion apart is its ability to make cruelty masquerade as acts of compassion.
-
But it's all 'just' natural. And either determined, or determined with random bits.
Yes, it is (on both counts). However, we are sophisticated cogitating systems - for all practical purposes (god's-eye view excluded), we are capable of making free rational choices, in accordance with that part of our natures and avoiding the consequences of other parts of our natures. Determinism isn't fatalism.
-
Yes, it is (on both counts). However, we are sophisticated cogitating systems - for all practical purposes (god's-eye view excluded), we are capable of making free rational choices, in accordance with that part of our natures and avoiding the consequences of other parts of our natures. Determinism isn't fatalism.
You see to me, that, and indeed, any form of this compatibilism, that gets trotted out by some atheists at such times reads like woo and cognitive dissonance. What is 'free' in a deterministic system?
-
I think what religion does very well is dress up atrocious behaviour as behaviour that is driven by concern and love. Therefore it becomes a loving act for parents to lock their trans children in their rooms or suggest that their gay offspring seek a 'cure'. If we think of something like the Rwandan massacre it's apparent that good neighbours don't need religion in order to hack each other to pieces; one thing that sets religion apart is its ability to make cruelty masquerade as acts of compassion.
Religion doesn't from an atheist point of view 'do' anything, surely? It just is.
-
Religion doesn't from an atheist point of view 'do' anything, surely? It just is.
Well you can split it down into religious dogma, religious teaching, if you like - that it's the belief they are saving their child from hell that enables an otherwise basically decent parent to subject their child to psychological torture. Does anything other than religion offer a hell from which to save your child from or the promise of eternity?
-
You see to me, that and indeed, any form of this compatibilism, that gets trotted out by some atheists at such times reads like woo and cognitive dissonance. What is 'free' in a deterministic system?
Do you doubt that you have the ability to think through problems and decide a course of actions and that said actions will form part of the future? That is, that your deliberations will be significant in future events?
Granted, all that has to work some how and from the unattainable point of view of an all knowing god, your thoughts emerge from the predicable (with possibly some random bits) most basic stuff of the universe but that doesn't actually make any practical difference to you and me who have decisions to make.
What is a truly free choice anyway? I would suggest one in which I act in accordance with who I am; my beliefs and values, my knowledge and experience. None of that is threatened by determinism. In fact, how would that even work in its absence?
-
NS,
How can something that is a product of our natures cause us to do something against our natures?
Milgram: the students were not by nature homicidal maniacs but, given the right stimulus - also part of nature - they could be made to behave as though they were.
-
NS,
We are surely also as a species inherently religious, as it didn't get beamed down from on high?
No, I think we're inherently pattern and explanation-seeking: that religions happen to satisfy that need for some is a secondary issue, and other types of dogma are available too. It's the tools of reason and skepticism that help us determines when those explanations are false ones.
The point though I think is that I'm anti- any dogma that thinks itself to be infallible because they seem to me to take the brakes off our inherent empathy and circumspection. Kill that guy over there for apostasy? Sure, why not - after all, I know with absolute stone cold certainty that that's what my god wants me to do.
-
NS,
Just to note my thanks to bhs for starting this thread. It's an interesting area of discussion in terms of how we approach theism.
Thanks, but I can't take the credit. It started as a discussion about the category error of conflating the disinterested pursuit of truth with what people want to be true (ie, atheism vs antitheism) but it's morphed into something else in no small part because of your good self.
-
Rhi,
I think what religion does very well is dress up atrocious behaviour as behaviour that is driven by concern and love. Therefore it becomes a loving act for parents to lock their trans children in their rooms or suggest that their gay offspring seek a 'cure'. If we think of something like the Rwandan massacre it's apparent that good neighbours don't need religion in order to hack each other to pieces; one thing that sets religion apart is its ability to make cruelty masquerade as acts of compassion.
Yes, that's Gonzo's "help" point: no doubt the churches do think they're helping, even as they bury the babies from unsustainably large families made so large because of the teachings of those same churches. I remember someone debating Christopher Hitchens (him again) and suggesting that the churches do great food and health charity work in Africa, and his reply being along the lines that they bloody well ought given how much of the problem they caused in the first place.
And speaking of moral bankruptcy - what kind of mind is that that really thinks that dying children is a price worth paying for what his god really wants? Would they think that but for their "faith"? I doubt it.
-
NS,
You see to me, that, and indeed, any form of this compatibilism, that gets trotted out by some atheists at such times reads like woo and cognitive dissonance. What is 'free' in a deterministic system?
You're digging too deep. Ultimately, there's no "free" in free will but using the paradigm of the model we appear to have then if, say, you allow yourself to be persuadable at least in principle by reason and evidence then different outcomes will follow. The alternative as Some says is fatalism - if there's no real "me" at the controls, I may as well stay under the duvet then.
It's a bit like the material world: a different model of my wife from the one I experience is that she's almost all empty space populated by vibrating quantum strings held together by fundamental forces, but that'd be a lot less fun on my birthday so instead I play the hand I'm dealt.
-
Well you can split it down into religious dogma, religious teaching, if you like - that it's the belief they are saving their child from hell that enables an otherwise basically decent parent to subject their child to psychological torture. Does anything other than religion offer a hell from which to save your child from or the promise of eternity?
That's just people doing people-y things. That it is unique in some ways doesn't make it anything external.
-
Yes, it is (on both counts). However, we are sophisticated cogitating systems - for all practical purposes (god's-eye view excluded), we are capable of making free rational choices, in accordance with that part of our natures and avoiding the consequences of other parts of our natures. Determinism isn't fatalism.
Agreed, determinism isn't fatalism but it is determined if we are fatalists.
-
NS,
You're digging too deep. Ultimately, there's no "free" in free will but using the paradigm of the model we appear to have then if, say, you allow yourself to be persuadable at least in principle by reason and evidence then different outcomes will follow. The alternative as Some says is fatalism - if there's no real "me" at the controls, I may as well stay under the duvet then.
It's a bit like the material world: a different model of my wife from the one I experience is that she's almost all empty space populated by vibrating quantum strings held together by fundamental forces, but that'd be a lot less fun on my birthday so instead I play the hand I'm dealt.
indeed we do and, as ever at such times,I will quote Isaiah Berlin ' Of course, I believe in free will, I have no choice'
That things might be determined has no real impact on what you should believe. You will be a fatalist if it is so determined. I find the whole belief in reason rather odd since many who make the argument also do not believe that we choose what to believe.
-
NS,
Milgram: the students were not by nature homicidal maniacs but, given the right stimulus - also part of nature - they could be made to behave as though they were.
Which surely means that they were going to behave like that in that situation, it was in their nature to do so?
I would have thought that Milgram might be an example you want to avoid since it illustrates exactly that in a given situation people will behave 'worse' and that would indicate that talk of inherent altruism is merely that given certain situations people behave as they 'behave'.
-
NS,
No, I think we're inherently pattern and explanation-seeking: that religions happen to satisfy that need for some is a secondary issue, and other types of dogma are available too. It's the tools of reason and skepticism that help us determines when those explanations are false ones.
The point though I think is that I'm anti- any dogma that thinks itself to be infallible because they seem to me to take the brakes off our inherent empathy and circumspection. Kill that guy over there for apostasy? Sure, why not - after all, I know with absolute stone cold certainty that that's what my god wants me to do.
These dogmas are inherent too, they cannot exist without us and our belief in them is not externally caused.
-
Easily: our natures aren't indivisible, with only one aspect. They are the result of a jumble of evolutionary outcomes that often pull us in different directions. Very often we can find our emotions or 'gut' instincts at odds with our rationality. Our rational ability cannot stop our brains from 'seeing' faces in clouds and fires...
I am not claiming there is only one aspect, indeed, the point is that there are many aspects but it is still just all us. We created all the theism because of that jumble of evolutionary outcomes.
As for our emotions, I will return to Hume, rationality will never tell you an ought without an emotion or desire to tell you that ought. Rationality can help you work out how to achieve that ought.
-
Agreed, determinism isn't fatalism but it is determined if we are fatalists.
You seem to have replied to this post twice and ignored #84 - the contents of which deal with this.
I'll only add that the notion of free will held by many (who haven't thought about it much) is contradictory pixie dust - totally impossible. However, if we adopt a more realistic stance, then, for all practical purposes, we have free will in a way that is consistent with most of our intuitions about it (all of the realistic ones).
-
Me, I'd have signs at airports: "Fast track security: atheists only"
Blimey, Hillside giving it ''The full Alf Garnett''.
-
You seem to have replied to this post twice and ignored #84 - the contents of which deal with this.
I'll only add that the notion of free will held by many (who haven't thought about it much) is contradictory pixie dust - totally impossible. However, if we adopt a more realistic stance, then, for all practical purposes, we have free will in a way that is consistent with most of our intuitions about it (all of the realistic ones).
Not ignored, just not got round to. I have been replying to a number of posts on the thread.
As covered in one of those replies I don't on a practical level have an issue with thinking we have free will. However, this is a theoretical discussion and mixing the two doesn't really work.
-
Do you doubt that you have the ability to think through problems and decide a course of actions and that said actions will form part of the future? That is, that your deliberations will be significant in future events?
Granted, all that has to work some how and from the unattainable point of view of an all knowing god, your thoughts emerge from the predicable (with possibly some random bits) most basic stuff of the universe but that doesn't actually make any practical difference to you and me who have decisions to make.
What is a truly free choice anyway? I would suggest one in which I act in accordance with who I am; my beliefs and values, my knowledge and experience. None of that is threatened by determinism. In fact, how would that even work in its absence?
I agree with you that a free choice is essentially meaningless. I don't know what the difference is between 'truly free' and 'free' which makes any sense in a conversation on theory.
To expand, it seems that this is the same issue I have with the cogito, it is begging the question to insert a perpendicular personal pronoun, there is thinking/choosing, no more in a philosophical sense.
-
Easily: our natures aren't indivisible, with only one aspect. They are the result of a jumble of evolutionary outcomes that often pull us in different directions. Very often we can find our emotions or 'gut' instincts at odds with our rationality. Our rational ability cannot stop our brains from 'seeing' faces in clouds and fires...
....or arseholes on websites?
-
I am not claiming there is only one aspect, indeed, the point is that there are many aspects but it is still just all us. We created all the theism because of that jumble of evolutionary outcomes.
Indeed we did. Obviously whatever causes theism (hyperactive agency detection?) may have had an evolutionary advantage but that doesn't mean that theism is helpful or desirable in modern societies.
As for our emotions, I will return to Hume, rationality will never tell you an ought without an emotion or desire to tell you that ought. Rationality can help you work out how to achieve that ought.
Not entirely sure why you added this - I basically agree, although there seems to be a lot of collaboration involved in defining morality. Societies tend to take a collective view.
To return to the point, societies can and do change what is considered acceptable and reasonable, and I see no reason not to encourage (as best we can) the promotion of rational thought, when it comes to matters of fact, over superstitions (including theism). Morality has to be a question of what sort of society we (collectively) want to live in - not the dictates of a non-existent being, as written in old myths.
-
Indeed we did. Obviously whatever causes theism (hyperactive agency detection?) may have had an evolutionary advantage but that doesn't mean that theism is helpful or desirable in modern societies.
Not entirely sure why you added this - I basically agree, although there seems to be a lot of collaboration involved in defining morality. Societies tend to take a collective view.
To return to the point, societies can and do change what is considered acceptable and reasonable, and I see no reason not to encourage (as best we can) the promotion of rational thought, when it comes to matters of fact, over superstitions (including theism). Morality has to be a question of what sort of society we (collectively) want to live in - not the dictates of a non-existent being, as written in old myths.
God definitely doesn't exist....when was that incontrovertibly established?
Mind you, on this forum of variable definition, would I be right in saying that a Non existent God is really a God for whom there is no physical evidence? or a God who probably doesn't exist?
-
God definitely doesn't exist....when was that incontrovertibly established?
Please point to the bit of SKoS's post where you think you got that from.
-
Please point to the bit of SKoS's post where you think you got that from.
Er, this:
Morality has to be a question of what sort of society we (collectively) want to live in - not the dictates of a non-existent being, as written in old myths.
How does he know God is non existent.
-
NS,
A three-for-one deal for you:
Me:
You're digging too deep. Ultimately, there's no "free" in free will but using the paradigm of the model we appear to have then if, say, you allow yourself to be persuadable at least in principle by reason and evidence then different outcomes will follow. The alternative as Some says is fatalism - if there's no real "me" at the controls, I may as well stay under the duvet then.
It's a bit like the material world: a different model of my wife from the one I experience is that she's almost all empty space populated by vibrating quantum strings held together by fundamental forces, but that'd be a lot less fun on my birthday so instead I play the hand I'm dealt.
You:
indeed we do and, as ever at such times,I will quote Isaiah Berlin ' Of course, I believe in free will, I have no choice'
That things might be determined has no real impact on what you should believe. You will be a fatalist if it is so determined. I find the whole belief in reason rather odd since many who make the argument also do not believe that we choose what to believe.
Do they though? Again, it’s playing the hand we appear to have: sure, everything is deterministic ultimately but the hand we’re dealt appears otherwise and there are plenty of examples of people who have changed their minds in response to arguments put by others. Had the interlocutor been struck by lightning that morning and not shown up at the debate, maybe that mind would never have been changed.
Me:
Milgram: the students were not by nature homicidal maniacs but, given the right stimulus - also part of nature - they could be made to behave as though they were.
You:
Which surely means that they were going to behave like that in that situation, it was in their nature to do so?
I would have thought that Milgram might be an example you want to avoid since it illustrates exactly that in a given situation people will behave 'worse' and that would indicate that talk of inherent altruism is merely that given certain situations people behave as they 'behave'.
It may have been in their nature somewhere, but it’s not how they would ordinarily have behaved – it took a very specific set of circumstances to cause them to behave not as they ordinarily would. That’s the contention here: convincing people (generally from a young age) that personal faith is an infallible guide to the truth is equivalent to Stanley Milgram’s experiments: it causes them to behave other than they ordinarily would but for their religion.
That’s what Milgram illustrates. The “given situation” that causes altruism to be our default position is what we have when it’s not overwritten by something else, eg religion (or other dogmatic paradigms).
Me:
No, I think we're inherently pattern and explanation-seeking: that religions happen to satisfy that need for some is a secondary issue, and other types of dogma are available too. It's the tools of reason and skepticism that help us determines when those explanations are false ones.
The point though I think is that I'm anti- any dogma that thinks itself to be infallible because they seem to me to take the brakes off our inherent empathy and circumspection. Kill that guy over there for apostasy? Sure, why not - after all, I know with absolute stone cold certainty that that's what my god wants me to do.
You:
These dogmas are inherent too, they cannot exist without us and our belief in them is not externally caused.
Inherent in whom? All it takes is enough dogmatic authority figures involved (clerics for example) for it to override the default setting for a given population, but without them the default persists.
-
Morality has to be a question of what sort of society we (collectively) want to live in - not the dictates of a non-existent being, as written in old myths.
Why?
How can a non existent being have dictats?
-
Indeed we did. Obviously whatever causes theism (hyperactive agency detection?) may have had an evolutionary advantage but that doesn't mean that theism is helpful or desirable in modern societies.
Surely if it persists, it is. If it doesn't it, isn't. Arguing that it isn't would be missing the point.
Not entirely sure why you added this - I basically agree, although there seems to be a lot of collaboration involved in defining morality. Societies tend to take a collective view.
To return to the point, societies can and do change what is considered acceptable and reasonable, and I see no reason not to encourage (as best we can) the promotion of rational thought, when it comes to matters of fact, over superstitions (including theism). Morality has to be a question of what sort of society we (collectively) want to live in - not the dictates of a non-existent being, as written in old myths.
And if some want it to be based on their idea of a god then evolutionary-wise, that's surely correct? Don't get me wrong I have no problem arguing that theists are wrong but that's a different category of position than saying we can get roid of what causes it without fundamentally changing what we are.
-
NS,
Do they though? Again, it’s playing the hand we appear to have: sure, everything is deterministic ultimately but the hand we’re dealt appears otherwise and there are plenty of examples of people who have changed their minds in response to arguments put by others. Had the interlocutor been struck by lightning that morning and not shown up at the debate, maybe that mind would never have been changed.
Wrll I've certainly seen the you don't choose your beliefs on here - BeRational used it today in fact. That with different input that belief might change doesn't show any form of choice.
It may have been in their nature somewhere, but it’s not how they would ordinarily have behaved – it took a very specific set of circumstances to cause them to behave not as they ordinarily would. That’s the contention here: convincing people (generally from a young age) that personal faith is an infallible guide to the truth is equivalent to Stanley Milgram’s experiments: it causes them to behave other than they ordinarily would but for their religion.
That’s what Milgram illustrates. The “given situation” that causes altruism to be our default position is what we have when it’s not overwritten by something else, eg religion (or other dogmatic paradigms).
That it is an experiment doesn't remove it from being a position in which they behave according to their nature though. It may not be a position that they would normally be in - but in that position that is how they naturally behaved.
It's not being 'overwritten' by anything. we react to the situtaion as is our nature. There isn't a default position, or if there is Milgram illustrates that in that position behaving as those who took part is the default.
Inherent in whom? All it takes is enough dogmatic authority figures involved (clerics for example) for it to override the default setting for a given population, but without them the default persists.
Inherent in us as humans. Unless the clerics are being beamed down messages from on high, then they are just acting as they are determined to do so.
-
Morality has to be a question of what sort of society we (collectively) want to live in - not the dictates of a non-existent being, as written in old myths.
So you guys are against argumentum ad populum for everything else but are for making morality the mother and father of argumentii
ad populum.
-
So you guys are against argumentum ad populum for everything else but are for making morality the mother and father of argumentii
ad populum.
No.
There's a difference between the fallacy of AaP - something is right/good/true because lots of people think so; as I've said before you can usually spot the point at which these statements become fallacies as it's generally the because that gives the game away - and the brute fact of consensus. SKoS seemed to be saying - rightly - that societies reach a broad consensus on what they regard as right and wrong, and some (by no means all) of those things can change over time.
-
NS,
Surely if it persists, it is. If it doesn't it, isn't. Arguing that it isn't would be missing the point.
On the evolutionary timescale it's far too early to know whether or not religion will persist. Maybe it was helpful for tribal cohesion purposes but will be disastrous when the tribes get too big (and tooled up with nukes), maybe it is/was just an aberrant blip outcropped from our explanation-seeking natures, maybe...
And if some want it to be based on their idea of a god then evolutionary-wise, that's surely correct? Don't get me wrong I have no problem arguing that theists are wrong but that's a different category of position than saying we can get roid of what causes it without fundamentally changing what we are.
But why? Why for example could not enough people be persuaded over time that it's a nonsense that they would opt to get rid of it. Indeed, isn't that to a significant extent what has happened in countries that are now secular?
-
In my experience we certainly don't choose our beliefs. What can happen is that someone puts something in front of us; if we hear it we may find that it feels more right than what we believed previously. it's not a conscious choice; it just happens as this real thing changes into that.
-
Surely if it persists, it is. If it doesn't it, isn't. Arguing that it isn't would be missing the point.
You seem to be slipping into fatalism - which is not implied by determinism. We can and do make judgements and have goals based on them.
And if some want it to be based on their idea of a god then evolutionary-wise, that's surely correct?
How did you get from "the result of evolution" to "correct"?
Don't get me wrong I have no problem arguing that theists are wrong but that's a different category of position than saying we can get roid of what causes it without fundamentally changing what we are.
Who said we could get rid of what causes it? We can, and do, learn to make rational judgements that override some of our evolved instincts. As far as superstition goes, as I said earlier in the conversation, we don't tend to burn "witches" anymore, perhaps we can learn to ditch gods too.
Why should we not try to influence people to get rid of superstitious thinking?
-
Of course the repeal of the Witchcraft Act meant a huge surge in the number of witches.
-
NS,
Wrll I've certainly seen the you don't choose your beliefs on here - BeRational used it today in fact. That with different input that belief might change doesn't show any form of choice.
It does if the idea "I'm persuadable" is only your starting position. That something persuasive may or may not actually turn up after that event is a different matter. That's all that's being said here: in what circumstance may or may not religion turn up - and should it be allowed to?
That it is an experiment doesn't remove it from being a position in which they behave according to their nature though. It may not be a position that they would normally be in - but in that position that is how they naturally behaved.
It's not being 'overwritten' by anything. we react to the situtaion as is our nature. There isn't a default position, or if there is Milgram illustrates that in that position behaving as those who took part is the default.
Don't agree. Surely Milgram precisely overwrote (albeit for a short time) the behaviour that otherwise have pertained didn't he? Yes, it's all in our "nature" somewhere but nature is a multi-faceted thing and unless something is physiologically impossible for some reason then every behaviour - and every potential behaviour - is in our nature.
Inherent in us as humans. Unless the clerics are being beamed down messages from on high, then they are just acting as they are determined to do so.
Yes, but if they can be sufficiently forceful, threatening, persuasive, whatever to cause others to behave in ways that are other than those that would ordinarily pertain. That's the point!
-
Er, this:
Morality has to be a question of what sort of society we (collectively) want to live in - not the dictates of a non-existent being, as written in old myths.
How does he know God is non existent.
That is a different conversation to the one I was involved in. However, all the various gods cannot exist; logically, at least most of them don't. You can take it as read that as soon as anybody comes up with any objective evidence or rational reasoning to support the existence of one or some of them, I will reconsider.
-
How can a non existent being have dictats?
The same way Sherlock Holmes was known to say "elementary".
-
You seem to be slipping into fatalism - which is not implied by determinism. We can and do make judgements and have goals based on them.
I presume you are using fatalism in the sense of events being predetermined, rather than the idea of a resigned approach to life? If so, then no, since I would accept the possibility of random events.
How did you get from "the result of evolution" to "correct"?
Simply that it as a result of evolution
Who said we could get rid of what causes it? We can, and do, learn to make rational judgements that override some of our evolved instincts. As far as superstition goes, as I said earlier in the conversation, we don't tend to burn "witches" anymore, perhaps we can learn to ditch gods too.
Why should we not try to influence people to get rid of superstitious thinking?
but we still manage to kill many more than were killed in the burnibgd, and we don't need religion to 'cause' it.
I have not said you shouldn't try and influence people just that we make religion not the other way round. If we were able to make religion stop, it would be impossible to begin to understand the consequences of what that means.
-
NS,
On the evolutionary timescale it's far too early to know whether or not religion will persist. Maybe it was helpful for tribal cohesion purposes but will be disastrous when the tribes get too big (and tooled up with nukes), maybe it is/was just an aberrant blip outcropped from our explanation-seeking natures, maybe...
But why? Why for example could not enough people be persuaded over time that it's a nonsense that they would opt to get rid of it. Indeed, isn't that to a significant extent what has happened in countries that are now secular?
But you are actively antitheist because you must think it's not beneficial. What is your evidence that were we not that inclined to religion we, as a species would be better off? What does the concept of 'better off' mean here?
-
The same way Sherlock Holmes was known to say "elementary".
So the dictats of Sherlock Holmes are the dictats of Conan Doyle.
-
NS,
It does if the idea "I'm persuadable" is only your starting position. That something persuasive may or may not actually turn up after that event is a different matter. That's all that's being said here: in what circumstance may or may not religion turn up - and should it be allowed to?
but surely your starting position is determined? Your belief in you being persuadable is no more chosen actively than any other belief. It's an outcome.
Don't agree. Surely Milgram precisely overwrote (albeit for a short time) the behaviour that otherwise have pertained didn't he? Yes, it's all in our "nature" somewhere but nature is a multi-faceted thing and unless something is physiologically impossible for some reason then every behaviour - and every potential behaviour - is in our nature.
But he did that by putting them in a situation where it was in their nature to obey. Just as it was in his nature to experiment. His instruction isn't beamed down any more than god's or Stalin's.
And note given the Stanford prison experiment, you don't have to be instructed to behave badly to do so, if the situation is something that we might behave so inherently.
Yes, but if they can be sufficiently forceful, threatening, persuasive, whatever to cause others to behave in ways that are other than those that would ordinarily pertain. That's the point!
And that 'whatever' is in their nature. It isn't external. That we tend to obey what we see as authority is inherent. It is not external to nature.
-
I presume you are using fatalism in the sense of events being predetermined, rather than the idea of a resigned approach to life? If so, then no, since I would accept the possibility of random events.
No, I meant fatalism in the sense of "whatever we do, X will happen". When I suggested theism may not be helpful or desireable, your response ("Surely if it persists, it is. If it doesn't it, isn't") - seemed fatalistic in that sense. The point is human actions and attitudes now will play a vital role in whether it persists. We have evolved the ability to reason and argue about it.
Simply that it as a result of evolution
So is seeing faces in fires and clouds, so is motion sickness, so is tribalism and prejudice - in what way are these "correct"?
I have not said you shouldn't try and influence people just that we make religion not the other way round.
Of course we make religion (we make racism, homophobia and sexism too). If you aren't arguing for not trying to influence people, then what are you arguing for? Why do you keep talking about it being "correct"?
If we were able to make religion stop, it would be impossible to begin to understand the consequences of what that means.
So what? The same could be said for racism, homophobia and sexism - or could have been said about keeping slaves or burning "witches", for that matter...
-
So the dictats of Sherlock Holmes are the dictats of Conan Doyle.
Conan Doyle made up a character and gave him certain characteristics (he gave Moriarty different characteristics). Likewise, the diktats of the various gods were made up by the originators of the myths. (At least that appears to be the case, unless you have some evidence or reasoning to support the idea that one, or more, of said gods actually does exist and did communicate with said originators.)
-
No, I meant fatalism in the sense of "whatever we do, X will happen". When I suggested theism may not be helpful or desireable, your response ("Surely if it persists, it is. If it doesn't it, isn't") - seemed fatalistic in that sense. The point is human actions and attitudes now will play a vital role in whether it persists. We have evolved the ability to reason and argue about it.
But not to act in ways that are not determined or random. We will do what we will do. Actions play a part but they are determined as well, at least by your position on this.
So is seeing faces in fires and clouds, so is motion sickness, so is tribalism and prejudice - in what way are these "correct"?
in any objective sense, not at all, and I suspect that is what you are getting hung up about the point is there is no wrongness, or external influence here. As an atheist, there isn't something influencing evolution.
Of course we make religion (we make racism, homophobia and sexism too). If you aren't arguing for not trying to influence people, then what are you arguing for? Why do you keep talking about it being "correct"?
So what? The same could be said for racism, homophobia and sexism - or could have been said about keeping slaves or burning "witches", for that matter...
Theism though is not a moral position. It isn't arguing for a specific action or consequence.
-
NS,
But you are actively antitheist because you must think it's not beneficial. What is your evidence that were we not that inclined to religion we, as a species would be better off? What does the concept of 'better off' mean here?
Yes, but I make no appeal to a supposedly absolute standard for "good" that I happen to have tapped into, and nor for that matter do I claim that no religion would be the evolutionarily optimum outcome.
"Best" here means for me something like, "causing least harm" - something I intuit and can to some extent at least reason my way towards. Provided I make no claim to a spurious benchmark of objective rightness, that's good enough for me to be an antitheist because - on balance - it seems to me that religion does more harm than good.
-
NS,
Yes, but I make no appeal to a supposedly absolute standard for "good" that I happen to have tapped into, and nor for that matter do I claim that no religion would be the evolutionarily optimum outcome.
"Best" here means for me something like, "causing least harm" - something I intuit and can to some extent at least reason my way towards. Provided I make no claim to a spurious benchmark of objective rightness, that's good enough for me to be an antitheist because - on balance - it seems to me that religion does more harm than good.
In part because you cherry pick and assume that it causes what you see as bad and has no rule in what's good because you assert that one thing is inherent, and one thing isn't. And how anything that we do given you're an atheist is not inherent baffles me
-
NS,
but surely your starting position is determined? Your belief in you being persuadable is no more chosen actively than any other belief. It's an outcome.
Yes, though perhaps that was because of my environment and upbringing - my parents taught me to be persuadable, and they only thought so because they in turn... etc etc. Determined or not though, it's just a starting condition - whether I ever encounter something that's persuasive enough for me to change my mind is unknowable. And that's all this is about - to the extent that people (usually children) are persuadable, does persuading them that faith is a better guide to truth than just guessing do more harm than good? And if you think it's the latter (as I do) then antitheism will tend to follow (as it has for me).
But he did that by putting them in a situation where it was in their nature to obey. Just as it was in his nature to experiment. His instruction isn't beamed down any more than god's or Stalin's.
There's no "but" about it - it's not relevant. The fact is that he was able to enable, activate, whatever behaviour that would otherwise have occurred, and that's the beginning and end of it.
And note given the Stanford prison experiment, you don't have to be instructed to behave badly to do so, if the situation is something that we might behave so inherently.
No you don't have to be instructed to behave badly, and I've suggested no such thing. It's simpler than that though: the premise is that we are inherently altruistic, and so it needs something else that's causal of behaviour that's other than that - doesn't matter much for this purpose whether it's prison, Milgram's experiment or religion.
-
But not to act in ways that are not determined or random. We will do what we will do. Actions play a part but they are determined as well, at least by your position on this.
"We will do what we will do" is a truism that has nothing to do with determinism. We will do what we decide to do. Yes, you can point out that every decision is the result of a massively complex chain of causality but that does not detract from it being a decision. In fact, as I pointed out before, that is the only way our decisions can be 'free' in the sense of being the genuine result of who we are; of our character, experience, knowledge, emotions and intellect.
in any objective sense, not at all, and I suspect that is what you are getting hung up about the point is there is no wrongness, or external influence here. As an atheist, there isn't something influencing evolution.
But we have evolved an ability to assign the terms "mistaken", "correct", "helpful", "desirable" and so on. There is no need for any external influence. We probably won't all agree about many things but we all have these concepts and we can discuss, reason, and argue about them.
Theism though is not a moral position. It isn't arguing for a specific action or consequence.
Often theism gives rise to moral positions. Anyway, more to the point, in what way does that make a difference? If you think it does, then theism would be a closer match to believing the Earth to be flat (something we are intuitively drawn to but nevertheless incorrect).
-
NS,
In part because you cherry pick and assume that it causes what you see as bad and has no rule in what's good because you assert that one thing is inherent, and one thing isn't. And how anything that we do given you're an atheist is not inherent baffles me
I'll need to unpack that:
First, I don’t just assert that altruism is inherent. It’s been studied exhaustively in nature, from humans to elephants to dolphins to vampire bats to social insects. Bill Hamilton is the best known biologist in this field, and he showed how it makes perfect evolutionary sense by optimising flourishing at the genomic level.
Second, I make no claim that religion has no part in what’s good. To the contrary, I don’t doubt that sometimes some people do good things when they otherwise would not precisely because of their religious beliefs. The premise though is in two parts: first, “faith” is no more a reliable guide to truth than just guessing; second, just guessing will manifestly lead to more wrong answers than it will to right ones. I “cherry pick” only to the extent that I follow that logic to its conclusion.
Third, you’re straying dangerously close to Trollboy idiocy here – morality must be “real” or it’s “arse pull”, “real” means absolute, therefore god. I merely say that my determination of “good” and “bad” means “good enough for me for now” and “bad enough for me for now” with no appeal to spurious absolutes, just as with any branch of aesthetics.
And that’s what leads me to antitheism without recourse to absolutes, just as I've been lead to antifascism without recourse to absolutes.
-
...
First, I don’t just assert that altruism is inherent. It’s been studied exhaustively in nature, from humans to elephants to dolphins to vampire bats to social insects. Bill Hamilton is the best known biologist in this field, and he showed how it makes perfect evolutionary sense by optimising flourishing at the genomic level.
It, altruism, is a perfectly good response in some common game situations and that is why we see it in nature. However the game is always changing. Once you are aware of a tactic in use by the "competition" you can exploit that fact and gain an advantage, but the game then changes.
We can understand pack mentality and use it to turn wolves into dogs to do our bidding, then destroy the wild predator, destroying the ecology of vast swathes of the planet as a result. Later we might want the wolf back.
Once you have everyone going along with the "golden rule", the next step is to cheat, grab the advantage and treat the rest as peasants.
Second, I make no claim that religion has no part in what’s good. To the contrary, I don’t doubt that sometimes some people do good things when they otherwise would not precisely because of their religious beliefs. The premise though is in two parts: first, “faith” is no more a reliable guide to truth than just guessing; second, just guessing will manifestly lead to more wrong answers than it will to right ones. I “cherry pick” only to the extent that I follow that logic to its conclusion.
It seems to me that you're mixing up two different things here - firstly, the technical matter of being able to decide on which abstract models best fit observed events and, secondly, the matter of being wrong or right on moral issues which really depends on understanding of each others emotions and desires and agreeing objectives. "Faith" here will get better (in the sense of more feeling happier) results than guessing because it will be based on discussion following agreement (or indoctrination) of some basic framework.
Third, you’re straying dangerously close to Trollboy idiocy here – morality must be “real” or it’s “arse pull”, “real” means absolute, therefore god. I merely say that my determination of “good” and “bad” means “good enough for me for now” and “bad enough for me for now” with no appeal to spurious absolutes, just as with any branch of aesthetics.
This is correct but means the nutcase bomber being just as "right", in his/her own eyes, as you are in yours. In fact they feel morally superior just because of their belief in a god and absolute morality.
And that’s what leads me to antitheism without recourse to absolutes, just as I've been lead to antifascism without recourse to absolutes.
Which game you play and how you play it is your own choice, to the extent that, in a deterministic universe, you have one.
-
Udayama,
It, altruism, is a perfectly good response in some common game situations and that is why we see it in nature. However the game is always changing. Once you are aware of a tactic in use by the "competition" you can exploit that fact and gain an advantage, but the game then changes.
We can understand pack mentality and use it to turn wolves into dogs to do our bidding, then destroy the wild predator, destroying the ecology of vast swathes of the planet as a result. Later we might want the wolf back.
Once you have everyone going along with the "golden rule", the next step is to cheat, grab the advantage and treat the rest as peasants.
All of that may well be true, but I was responding to the charge of just asserting altruism to being the default position for human behaviour when in fact it’s well demonstrated and documented in the literature in our and in many other species.
It seems to me that you're mixing up two different things here - firstly, the technical matter of being able to decide on which abstract models best fit observed events and, secondly, the matter of being wrong or right on moral issues which really depends on understanding of each others emotions and desires and agreeing objectives.
I don’t think so. Rather I was thinking specifically of the claims of fact made on the basis of faith – “god”, “heaven/hell” etc – and suggesting that such claims are no more likely to be true than just guessing. Absent a method of any kind to test these claims of fact, that doesn’t seem an unreasonable position to take to me. That’s your “which abstract models best fit observed events” bit.
Morality – judgments about what’s “good” and “bad” – on the other hand, are a different matter, albeit often situated on claims of fact. For this purpose though it’s a second order issue: “homosexuality is wrong because god says so” is situated on the claimed fact of “God”, and so I dismiss the rationale before we get to the outcome.
"Faith" here will get better (in the sense of more feeling happier) results than guessing because it will be based on discussion following agreement (or indoctrination) of some basic framework.
I’m not so sure about that. First, some of the most vehemently “faithful” here seem to me to be least happy posters – thoroughly bitter and twisted, hateful towards those who don’t share their opinions etc. Second though, faith claims of fact are in a different category from concerns about what makes us happier or not (which brings us back to the atheism/antitheism category error). What I think to be true and what I want to be true are very different things.
This is correct but means that the nutcase bomber being just as "right", in his/her own eyes, as you are in yours. In fact they feel morally superior just because of their belief in a god and absolute morality.
Yes – in their eyes they are morally correct; in my eyes I’m morally correct. How could it be otherwise? In the absence of an empirical measure for “moral correctness” that must be the case, just as Fred thinks Kylie’s “I Should Be So Lucky” is musical genius and Mary thinks it’s crap. The best I can hope for therefore is to be sufficiently persuasive to convince more people to share my opinion than the ISIS bomber is to persuade people of his.
I don’t have a problem with this because I don’t claim an absolute, gold standard for moral good/bad so I’m fully aware that – when all said and done – it’s all intuition and reason leading to opinion with no pretence at objectivity to underpin it.
Which game you play and how you play it is your own choice, to the extent that, in a deterministic universe, you have one.
Yes it is – but that doesn’t prevent me from being both an atheist and an antitheist. I play the hand I’m dealt. The problem with the deterministic discussion here is that it’s going nuclear – any discussion about art or politics or philosophy or anything – could be met with the same reply of, “but it’s all deterministic isn’t it?” to which the only answer is, “yes, but so what?”
-
NS,
So how would you feel about removing religion and replacing is with scepticism as an alternative?
Shouldn't the problem be tackled from the other-side, so to speak. What is religion for? Why did it evolve? What purpose or function is it fulfilling in the most fundamental sense of our humanity?
Once we see this then we can start to see how to replace it or remove it.
-
Rhi,
But surely the point is that religion doesn't actually offer an afterlife at all - just the bonkers promise of it if you follow the rules. Wouldn't teaching rationalism and scepticism help give the lie to that supposed offer?
Education isn't the answer, usually, because religion touches something deep in the human psyche. Education is just a patina in life not a fundamental element of it.
-
number of people who have been convicted of a crime vs number of those who have not?
If people are well fed they won't have any need to fight. When there is no food they'll do anything for a piece of bread. Your answer doesn't hold true.
-
Dear Sane,
That's what I have been saying!! We are a religious lot, maybe they will listen to you, they don't listen to me, my genius is not appreciated on this forum ::) ::)
Gonnagle.
If you mean religious in the generic sense then yes but it is the specificity that is engaged in that is off the rails.
-
Yes, it is (on both counts). However, we are sophisticated cogitating systems - for all practical purposes (god's-eye view excluded), we are capable of making free rational choices, in accordance with that part of our natures and avoiding the consequences of other parts of our natures. Determinism isn't fatalism.
Are you advocating free-will here? And who is this 'we'?
-
Third, you’re straying dangerously close to Trollboy idiocy here – morality must be “real” or it’s “arse pull”, “real” means absolute, therefore god. I merely say that my determination of “good” and “bad” means “good enough for me for now” and “bad enough for me for now” with no appeal to spurious absolutes, just as with any branch of aesthetics.
I'm trying to work out where the emphasis is here is it the ''Good'' and ''Bad'' or the ''for me''.
In any case if it is just for you. What business do you have inflicting your ideas of Good and Bad on the rest of us? You would look pretty daft devoting the hours you do extolling the virtues of your ideas of good and bad, extolling the virtues of a liking for marmite and criticising those who hate it. What makes it less daft extolling the virtues of your own morality?
-
What business do you have inflicting your ideas of Good and Bad on the rest of us? You would look pretty daft devoting the hours you do extolling the virtues of your ideas of good and bad, extolling the virtues of a liking for marmite and criticising those who hate it. What makes it less daft extolling the virtues of your own morality?
Well Vlad, I dunno....
...oh, hang on! Perhaps it's got something to do with how important morality is to our society, how we all live together and treat each other; that kind of thing?
Then again, maybe you think that's no more important than whether people like Marmite or not...
-
Well Vlad, I dunno....
...oh, hang on! Perhaps it's got something to do with how important morality is to our society, how we all live together and treat each other; that kind of thing?
Then again, maybe you think that's no more important than whether people like Marmite or not...
Yes I agree it is important to society.....but Bluehillside has played the ''morality as things Good or bad for ME'' card rendering any of your ''society'' talk non sequitur.
I'm sorry but Hillside has ''comprehensively pissed on your bonfire''.
-
Yes I agree it is important to society.....but Bluehillside has played the ''morality as things Good or bad for ME'' card rendering any of your ''society'' talk non sequitur.
I'm sorry but Hillside has ''comprehensively pissed on your bonfire''.
You don't half get confused...
- If there is no objective morality, then we each have our own views of what is right and wrong (although, as we are all human, there is a fair degree of consensus).
- Societies needs rules and some idea of what is considered acceptable within them.
- The result is a messy system of rule setting and discourse in which societies influence individuals and individuals (and groups) can influence societies.
- Hence, morality is subjective but we still need to argue and talk about it because it's important, it affects all of us, and allows societies to change (abolition of slavery, equal rights and so on).
It actually makes no practical difference at all if there is objective morality because, even if there is, nobody has come up with a universally accepted way of deciding what it is.
-
Some,
You don't half get confused...
If there is no objective morality, then we each have our own views of what is right and wrong (although, as we are all human, there is a fair degree of consensus).
Societies needs rules and some idea of what is considered acceptable within them.
The result is a messy system of rule setting and discourse in which societies influence individuals and individuals (and groups) can influence societies.
Hence, morality is subjective but we still need to argue and talk about it because it's important, it affects all of us, and allows societies to change (abolition of slavery, equal rights and so on).
It actually makes no practical difference at all if there is objective morality because, even if there is, nobody has come up with a universally accepted way of deciding what it is.
Very well expressed, and spot on.
-
You don't half get confused...
- If there is no objective morality, then we each have our own views of what is right and wrong (although, as we are all human, there is a fair degree of consensus).
- Societies needs rules and some idea of what is considered acceptable within them.
- The result is a messy system of rule setting and discourse in which societies influence individuals and individuals (and groups) can influence societies.
- Hence, morality is subjective but we still need to argue and talk about it because it's important, it affects all of us, and allows societies to change (abolition of slavery, equal rights and so on).
It actually makes no practical difference at all if there is objective morality because, even if there is, nobody has come up with a universally accepted way of deciding what it is.
Don't tell me. tell Hillside......He's the one who was forced into saying that morality was what was Good or bad for HIM.
I totally believe that he thinks that.
-
Just a note to SKoS and bhs, I recognise I have to reply to you but it needs some time and currently just dipping in and out.
-
Third, you’re straying dangerously close to Trollboy idiocy here – morality must be “real” or it’s “arse pull”
I'm afraid it's worse than that Hillside not only is your morality not ''real'.....it isn't ''morality'.
-
NS,
Just a note to SKoS and bhs, I recognise I have to reply to you but it needs some time and currently just dipping in and out.
No problem.Trollboy is going off on one of his total misrepresentations of what's actually been said here so maybe once it's past his bedtime we can pick up where we left off.
I have to say that I enjoy our exchanges, especially when Some, Bramble, Wiggs and a few others join in too. Thank you.
-
Trollboy is going off on one of his total misrepresentations of what's actually been said here
Did you or did you not write this in reply#129
'' I merely say that my determination of “good” and “bad” means “good enough for me for now” and “bad enough for me for now”
How is that different from saying ''religion is true for me''. Since you complain at people telling you that they believe religion is true, it is hypocritical for you to say that your morality is right and theirs is wrong.
-
Trollboy,
I had decided not to reply to you until you could manage a reply that didn't completely misrepresent what I'd said. This though:
Did you or did you not write this in reply#129
'' I merely say that my determination of “good” and “bad” means “good enough for me for now” and “bad enough for me for now”
How is that different from saying ''religion is true for me''. Since you complain at people telling you that they believe religion is true, it is hypocritical for you to say that your morality is right and theirs is wrong.
...is so completely bonkers as to force a correction. What I meant of course was that the arguments for "good" and "bad" are good/bad enough for me to take a position in either case without the ludicrous notion of an objective set of rules we could just look up instead. The last thing I thought, implied or said was that moral good and bad are determined by what happens to suit me personally. Some's last post explains the position perfectly clearly.
-
Trollboy,
I had decided not to reply to you until you could manage a reply that didn't completely misrepresent what I'd said. This though:
...is so completely bonkers as to force a correction. What I meant of course was that the arguments for "good" and "bad" are good/bad enough for me to take a position in either case without the ludicrous notion of an objective set of rules we could just look up instead. The last thing I thought, implied or said was that moral good and bad are determined by what happens to suit me personally. Some's last post explains the position perfectly clearly.
OK, so now you are qualifying what you actually mean.
So far I'm getting morality as a consensus from you. We can investigate that but i'm on a flyer today.
Other than that isn't the final moral driver in your ''Consensus''....... not getting caught?
-
Other than that isn't the final moral driver in your ''Consensus''....... not getting caught?
::)
If the driver for the consensus was not getting caught, then you wouldn't make any rules to break, then nobody would "get caught"...
-
...but i'm on a flyer today
Ah, the farewell cry of the Kamikaze pilot...
It's an odd tactic isn't it. I say, "white is white"; Trollboy replies, "ah, so you think white is black then"; I reply, "no, what I said was that white is white"; and Trollboy comes back with, 'ah, so now you're qualifying what you actually mean".
Pathological dishonesty is one thing, but the shamelessness of it is remarkable. Ah well.
-
::)
If the driver for the consensus was not getting caught, then you wouldn't make any rules to break, then nobody would "get caught"...
That would be fine if the rules were made by consensus. But it is the consensus bit that is the week part. Rules are produced more by hegemony. That is why there are more lower class in prisons and at various times, ethnic minorities.
-
That would be fine if the rules were made by consensus. But it is the consensus bit that is the week part. Rules are produced more by hegemony. That is why there are more lower class in prisons and at various times, ethnic minorities.
You asked if the driver in the consensus was not getting caught. Do make up your mind what you're trying to argue with.
As I said before: it's a messy and complicated process. It also works differently in different societies. As I also said (and you ignored) we have exactly the same problems and process even if there is objective morality because there is no agreed method of discovering what it is.
Messy and complex either way.
Is the final moral driver for theists the belief that they'll always get caught if they do wrong?
-
Is the final moral driver for theists the belief that they'll always get caught if they do wrong?
I suppose it is something that results from a belief in God knowing all things, yes. But that is a realisation early on that in Christianity is a motivator to repentance rather than an increased moral effort in commandment adherence.
In Christianity the Christian loves God THEN does what he/she likes(Augustine). Everything should predicated on the love of God and it is love of God, self and neighbour which is the ultimate moral rule . On the other hand there are plenty of scriptural injunctions on giving proper regard to the law of the land.
-
Well Vlad, I see you ignored the bit where I pointed out your inconsistency and also that those advocating an objective moral position face the same practical problems as those who regard morality as subjective...
I suppose it is something that results from a belief in God knowing all things, yes. But that is a realisation early on that in Christianity is a motivator to repentance rather than an increased moral effort in commandment adherence.
In Christianity the Christian loves God THEN does what he/she likes(Augustine). Everything should predicated on the love of God and it is love of God, self and neighbour which is the ultimate moral rule . On the other hand there are plenty of scriptural injunctions on giving proper regard to the law of the land.
First you make a sweeping generalization about a subjective moral consensus, now about Christians. As tends to be the way with sweeping generalizations - I suspect that neither are true.
Does god like what is morally good or are things morally good just because god likes them?
-
Well Vlad, I see you ignored the bit where I pointed out your inconsistency and also that those advocating an objective moral position face the same practical problems as those who regard morality as subjective...
First you make a sweeping generalization about a subjective moral consensus, now about Christians. As tends to be the way with sweeping generalizations - I suspect that neither are true.
Does god like what is morally good or are things morally good just because god likes them?
God IS moral good.
-
God IS moral good.
Not a being, then? Not the creator of the universe? Morally good according to whose standards? Your statement is essentially meaningless.
And you still ignored most of what I said....
-
Some,
And you still ignored most of what I said....
He always will - try asking Trollboy what method he proposes to take him from his "whatever pops into my head-ism" to "must also be true for you too" for example. He must have circumnavigated the globe running away from that one. Be fun too to see hm trying to square the circle of "God can do anything"/"God is moral good" and babies dying of brain cancer.
The usual cop out by the way when theistic assertions of this type collapse into contradiction is, "it's a mystery" but, as chummy is so busy making up misrepresentations of what other people say to answer a question that's put to him, I don't know whether he'd take the same line or just ignore it too.
-
Some,
He always will - try asking Trollboy what method he proposes to take him from his "whatever pops into my head-ism" to "must also be true for you too" for example. He must have circumnavigated the globe running away from that one. Be fun too to see hm trying to square the circle of "God can do anything"/"God is moral good" and babies dying of brain cancer.
The usual cop out by the way when theistic assertions of this type collapse into contradiction is, "it's a mystery" but, as chummy is so busy making up misrepresentations of what other people say to answer a question that's put to him, I don't know whether he'd take the same line or just ignore it too.
Saying ''we don't know'' is OK but saying that things are a mystery
is not OK. Hypocritical humbug Hillside. Your turn.
As for Something Strange......he suffers from vagueness.....how does one respond to that?
-
Saying ''we don't know'' is OK but saying that things are a mystery
is not OK. Hypocritical humbug Hillside.
No, not really, since an atheist's "don't know" is precisely and exactly that but your "mystery" for some reason includes a god. Thus "don't know" includes whether gods exist or not but your 'mystery" incoporates a god who does baffling, arbitrary things indistinguisable from no god and random chance instead. One of these positions gets itself sliced and diced by Occam's Razor, the other doesn't.
Not comparable scenarios at all.
-
Saying ''we don't know'' is OK but saying that things are a mystery
is not OK. Hypocritical humbug Hillside. Your turn.
No, lacking some information or enough evidence to draw a conclusion is okay. Dismissing an obvious logical absurdity with the word "mystery" is, as you would put it, turd polishing.
As for Something Strange......he suffers from vagueness.....how does one respond to that?
By pointing out the vagueness and asking for clarification.
-
Shakes,
No, not really, since an atheist's "don't know" is precisely and exactly that but your "mystery" for some reason includes a god. Not comparable scenarios at all.
That's true, but Trollboy has also - ever ever - missed the point: "don't knows" about facts like, say, the origin of the Universe are one thing; setting up a proposition that's internally contradictory ("god is good/god can do anything/innocents die" for example) means that the assertion collapses. Neither "don't know" not "it's a mystery" allow bad thinking to persist.
-
Shakes,
That's true, but Trollboy has also - ever ever - missed the point: "don't knows" about facts like, say, the origin of the Universe is one thing; setting up a proposition that's internally contradictory ("god is good/god can do anything/innocents die" for example) means that the assertion collapses. Neither "don't know" not "it's a mystery" allow bad logic to remain.
Having been that side of the fence, 'it's a mystery' isn't meant to be logical. It's a kind of sticking plaster solution to the gaping wound caused by the question of 'why so much suffering?' in the faith of anyone who believes in a merciful, loving and omnipotent God.
-
No, lacking some information or enough evidence to draw a conclusion is okay. Dismissing an obvious logical absurdity with the word "mystery" is, .
Well then as an atheist of integrity you will assemble your alleged logical absurdities for perusal.
-
Well then as an atheist of integrity you will assemble your alleged logical absurdities for perusal.
You could start with #157 and #162 ("The Problem of Evil").
And you are still ignoring most of what I said, so you could then go back to addressing whether god chooses to be good or good is only good because it's what god chooses. Perhaps you could try something other than a meaningless slogan, this time?
-
You could start with #157 and #162 ("The Problem of Evil").
And you are still ignoring most of what I said, so you could then go back to addressing whether god chooses to be good or good is only good because it's what god chooses. Perhaps you could try something other than a meaningless slogan, this time?
In terms of 157 and 162, these are natural evil questions am I right?
Suffering is seen in the context of divine restoration of the human and the granting of eternal existence where death and suffering are not the end. Where suffering is in fact a human affair.
Given that death and suffering are not the end we will have passed them in due course although we will always be free to harbour a rage on them.
Against all this though atheism has no answer to suffering or evil except perhaps to explain it away or to make it the fault of others namely religionists and their Gods and to raise atheist hands in a chorus of 'sorry Guv, nothing to do with me'.
If you have an alternative take on suffering which doesn't involve blaming God and doesn't deny it's existence present it.
-
You could start with #157 and #162 ("The Problem of Evil").
And you are still ignoring most of what I said, so you could then go back to addressing whether god chooses to be good or good is only good because it's what god chooses. Perhaps you could try something other than a meaningless slogan, this time?
I thought i'd answered that. God is goodness, that's why we have a confusing variety of responses against him.
I'm surprised that you should call that response meaningless since you seem to accept that morality is only, in the world we know of,
a human affair. When confronted by a more moral force we react in varying and confused ways.
I think it was Plato who surmised that a perfect man would arouse such personal panic that one response would be to destroy them.
Perhaps you would now like to say why Good being moral good forbids God from being creator etc?
-
Suffering is seen in the context of divine restoration of the human and the granting of eternal existence where death and suffering are not the end. Where suffering is in fact a human affair.
Given that death and suffering are not the end we will have passed them in due course although we will always be free to harbour a rage on them.
You appear to be saying god creating evil and suffering is all good really because it doesn't last? Why does god create it at all, for fun?
If you have an alternative take on suffering which doesn't involve blaming God and doesn't deny it's existence present it.
Is this a serious question? Suffering is what happens when things go badly for an individual (either at the hands of others or for other reasons). In a universe without a plan, purpose, or (allegedly good and loving) designer, why would it need any more of an explanation?
I thought i'd answered that. God is goodness, that's why we have a confusing variety of responses against him.
As, I said before, that's a meaningless slogan. What does it mean to say god is goodness? Taken literally, as an equality, that would mean goodness is god. Hence, god would not be a being or creator of the universe but some (according to all the evidence) subjective notion of a class of behaviours.
Moral good is an abstraction, not a thing or a being.
-
You appear to be saying god creating evil and suffering is all good really because it doesn't last? Why does god create it at all, for fun?
Is this a serious question? Suffering is what happens when things go badly for an individual (either at the hands of others or for other reasons). In a universe without a plan, purpose, or (allegedly good and loving) designer, why would it need any more of an explanation?
As, I said before, that's a meaningless slogan. What does it mean to say god is goodness? Taken literally, as an equality, that would mean goodness is god. Hence, god would not be a being or creator of the universe but some (according to all the evidence) subjective notion of a class of behaviours.
Moral good is an abstraction, not a thing or a being.
I think natural things are going to cause suffering because pain is an indicator that something is not right and therefore has a natural purpose. Let us not forget that God has also given the humans the means of preventing and alleviating suffering but anaestheasia against everything is not necessarily a good thing.
God is not your normal being, he is not contingent and he is ultimate. He is not a material thing.
Your problems stem from your inability to think outside a tight philosophical box and dogmatic adherence to relativism.
-
No prizes awarded for guessing who's in charge of the Assertatron today ::)
-
No prizes awarded for guessing who's in charge of the Assertatron today ::)
You're in charge of the wankatron.....................screenshot that.
-
I think natural things are going to cause suffering because pain is an indicator that something is not right and therefore has a natural purpose.
Okay.
Let us not forget that God has also given the humans the means of preventing and alleviating suffering but anaestheasia against everything is not necessarily a good thing.
This is just avoiding the problem, which is why god (if it exists) created evil, pain and suffering in the first place.
God is not your normal being, he is not contingent and he is ultimate. He is not a material thing.
So what? You need to explain how that relates to whether it is good or goodness is whatever it decides. Take a look at this:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma
Your problems stem from your inability to think outside a tight philosophical box and dogmatic adherence to relativism.
Your problem is that you have totally failed to provide any answers to these questions. Telling people they are in a "philosophical box" is not a substitute for providing an argument for your position.
-
Okay.
This is just avoiding the problem, which is why god (if it exists) created evil, pain and suffering in the first place.
So what? You need to explain how that relates to whether it is good or goodness is whatever it decides. Take a look at this:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma
Your problem is that you have totally failed to provide any answers to these questions. Telling people they are in a "philosophical box" is not a substitute for providing an argument for your position.
I have stated what pain does. It is a warning that things have become to be suboptimal.
There is pain and suffering due to one's id not being satisfied but then again that is a warning.
Finally evil. God does not create evil....that is us.
You are in a philosophical box for reasons I have spelled out.
You define goodness as a relative thing rather than an absolute. That is an arbitrary dogmatic choice.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma
The Eutrypho dilemma is only so though if you believe that there is God and there is Good. There is in the argument a false dichotomy.
-
I have stated what pain does. It is a warning that things have become to be suboptimal.
There is pain and suffering due to one's id not being satisfied but then again that is a warning.
Why would anything be suboptimal in a universe created by an omnipotent and good god?
Finally evil. God does not create evil....that is us.
This is attempting to explain one logical absurdity with another. As I have pointed out before, free will is a nonsense from the point of view of an omnipotent, omniscient creator. Everything (including our choices) would be as a direct result of its creative actions, unless it introduced a truly element, which would also be its responsibility.
You are in a philosophical box for reasons I have spelled out.
You define goodness as a relative thing rather than an absolute. That is an arbitrary dogmatic choice.
No, it isn't. We observe that "goodness" is an abstraction in people's minds. Apparently a subjective (as not everybody agrees about exactly what is good) one. If you want to argue that it is something else; something external and objective, it is up to you to supply the evidence or reasoning.
The Eutrypho dilemma is only so though if you believe that there is God and there is Good. There is in the argument a false dichotomy.
The "false dichotomy" arguments don't actually make sense. If you make god's nature the standard for good, you are essentially siding with "good is whatever god wants" and rejecting the idea that god chooses to be good. Apart from "might is right" why should we accept god's nature as being the standard?
-
Why would anything be suboptimal in a universe created by an omnipotent and good god?
This is attempting to explain one logical absurdity with another. As I have pointed out before, free will is a nonsense from the point of view of an omnipotent, omniscient creator. Everything (including our choices) would be as a direct result of its creative actions, unless it introduced a truly element, which would also be its responsibility.
No, it isn't. We observe that "goodness" is an abstraction in people's minds. Apparently a subjective (as not everybody agrees about exactly what is good) one. If you want to argue that it is something else; something external and objective, it is up to you to supply the evidence or reasoning.
The "false dichotomy" arguments don't actually make sense. If you make god's nature the standard for good, you are essentially siding with "good is whatever god wants" and rejecting the idea that god chooses to be good. Apart from "might is right" why should we accept god's nature as being the standard?
Well it comes down to definition of Goodness I suppose. I can quite easily see why a sugar daddy or gumball type God is not a good thing......to you it is the very definition of goodness.
The very idea of omnipotence any way is undermined by the insistence on having God as separate from Goodness so your bringing it up here is self undermined.
I note also your objections depend on goodness being relative that is an assertion which needs proving as much as any absolute goodness.
The rest is just determinism.
-
I think natural things are going to cause suffering because pain is an indicator that something is not right and therefore has a natural purpose. Let us not forget that God has also given the humans the means of preventing and alleviating suffering but anaestheasia against everything is not necessarily a good thing.
God is not your normal being, he is not contingent and he is ultimate. He is not a material thing.
Your problems stem from your inability to think outside a tight philosophical box and dogmatic adherence to relativism.
Your desire to believe is touching, but it really is time to grow up and leave the fantasy behind. Humanity does not have the capability to prevent all suffering, or even most suffering. Stop making up excuses for your God. Face up to it like an adult - either the god you believe in creates and allows the suffering of innocents, or you are believing in something that cannot be.
Have the courage to question it, Vlad. Otherwise you're stuck in an infantilising comfort blanket of a belief system.
-
Well it comes down to definition of Goodness I suppose. I can quite easily see why a sugar daddy or gumball type God is not a good thing......to you it is the very definition of goodness.
I said nothing of the sort.
Does god lack the imagination to create a world free of suffering and evil without being a "sugar daddy"? You said that that suffering was not permanent; so what of the time when it is over ('heaven')? Why not start out like that and miss out all the evil and suffering?
The very idea of omnipotence any way is undermined by the insistence on having God as separate from Goodness so your bringing it up here is self undermined.
Which part of my post is this supposed to relate to?
I note also your objections depend on goodness being relative that is an assertion which needs proving as much as any absolute goodness.
Goodness is a concept in people's minds; that isn't an assertion, it's an observation. If you think it got there from some god (or other external agency) and is (despite observed differences) objective, that is for you to argue for or to provide the evidence for.
The rest is just determinism.
There is, logically, only determinism or randomness.
-
Goodness is a concept in people's minds; that isn't an assertion, it's an observation.
Yes, but that adds absolutely nothing to our debate.
-
I said nothing of the sort.
Does god lack the imagination to create a world free of suffering and evil without being a "sugar daddy"? You said that that suffering was not permanent; so what of the time when it is over ('heaven')? Why not start out like that and miss out all the evil and suffering?
That is a good question but a lousy conclusion.
-
Your desire to believe is touching, but it really is time to grow up and leave the fantasy behind. Humanity does not have the capability to prevent all suffering, or even most suffering. Stop making up excuses for your God. Face up to it like an adult - either the god you believe in creates and allows the suffering of innocents, or you are believing in something that cannot be.
Have the courage to question it, Vlad. Otherwise you're stuck in an infantilising comfort blanket of a belief system.
A mere ''mother knows best type post''.
If it helps..................... blame God.
Outside of that.............. piss off.
-
That is a good question but a lousy conclusion.
Except that non-suffering in heaven is supposed to be the ideal state. So what's the purpose of it here?
-
A "fuck off" (hastily edited) and a "piss off" within a couple of hours.
Your debating skills are well down to their usual level, Vladdychops.
-
A mere ''mother knows best type post''.
If it helps..................... blame God.
Outside of that.............. piss off.
I realise that your adolescent brain finds it difficult to engage with adult conversation. Of course most teenagers outgrow it but I fear it may be rather late in the day in your case.
-
A "fuck off" (hastily edited) and a "piss off" within a couple of hours.
Your debating skills are well down to their usual level, Vladdychops.
Debate......you mean it wasn't a rhetorical post whose sole purpose was character assassination?
-
Yes, but that adds absolutely nothing to our debate.
Unless you have an argument or evidence that it is anything else, it is very relevant.
That is a good question but a lousy conclusion.
That was three questions (hint: count the question marks) and no conclusion.
-
I realise that your adolescent brain finds it difficult to engage with adult conversation. Of course most teenagers outgrow it but I fear it may be rather late in the day in your case.
...........sorry, please piss off.
-
Just to note that debating does not consist of just lying about what the other person has said.
-
...........sorry, please piss off.
No, you're right, I made a mistake. I spend quite a lot of time with teenagers and they are all unfailingly more polite and charming than you ever manage.
-
Just to note that debating does not consist of just lying about what the other person has said.
But Vlad would have to stop posting altogether if he stopped doing that.
-
Except that non-suffering in heaven is supposed to be the ideal state. So what's the purpose of it here?
I thought I had outlined that. Pain as warning in a material world.
-
I thought I had outlined that. Pain as warning in a material world.
Pain and suffering aren't the same thing. And not all pain can be acted on or relieved.
The suffering caused by the loss of a child warns against what?
The pain of drowning warns against what?
-
Dear Rhiannon,
Your desire to believe is touching, but it really is time to grow up and leave the fantasy behind. Humanity does not have the capability to prevent all suffering, or even most suffering. Stop making up excuses for your God. Face up to it like an adult - either the god you believe in creates and allows the suffering of innocents, or you are believing in something that cannot be.
Have the courage to question it, Vlad. Otherwise you're stuck in an infantilising comfort blanket of a belief system.
Where are you coming from in the above post, I have not witnessed humanity trying to prevent all or most suffering, sure! There are some scientists, doctors trying to prevent suffering but all I see is humanity getting in their way, but I suppose necessity is the mother of all, and I certainly don't see any world wide push to cure suffering, it is certainly within our capacity to cure, God has given us that, what I see is, you mate are the wrong colour/religion or you have something I want and I am going to have it, with or without your permission, when humanity realises that we are all in it together then we might see a real push for a cure all, we could start with asking that nice man Mr Cameron to scrap Trident, after all there was an advertisement that told us, all we need to defeat cancer is more funding.
Now there's an idea, scrap all weapons of mass destruction, give the money to the scientists, hell we could use the money to train more scientists, but sure as eggs are eggs there will be some nice chap thinking, now where's the profit in this. >:(
Gonnagle.
-
Pain and suffering aren't the same thing. And not all pain can be acted on or relieved.
The suffering caused by the loss of a child warns against what?
The pain of drowning warns against what?
Again pain is a warning mechanism and has no other evolved purpose but you are right that the pain is not always relievable.....except by divine intervention.
-
Rhi,
The pain of drowning warns against what?
Forgetting to fill your oxygen tanks?
Wouldn't it make a change if just for once someone who believed in a god of the omnis finally had a go at explaining the observable facts of babies with brain cancer. Trollboy clearly isn't up to the job, though to be fair I think I once heard Rowan Williams use the "it's a mystery" cop out too so he's in good company I guess.
-
#192 Ask Vlad, Gonners, it's his post I'm responding to.
-
Rhi,
Forgetting to fill your oxygen tanks?
Wouldn't it make a change if just for once someone who believed in a god of the omnis finally had a go at explaining the observable facts of babies with brain cancer. Trollboy clearly isn't up to the job, though to be fair I think I once heard Rowan Williams use the "it's a mystery" cop out too so he's in good company I guess.
Yes, at least Welby came up with 'I don't know, I don't understand' when asked about suffering.
-
Gonners,
...it is certainly within our capacity to cure, God has given us...
But why would this "morally good" god of yours give us the illnesses in the first place and then sit back while he waited to see whether we could cure them? It amuses him? He was was bored one wet Wednesday afternoon so thought he'd torture his special creation just to pass the time? What?
-
Again pain is a warning mechanism and has no other evolved purpose but you are right that the pain is not always relievable.....except by divine intervention.
God's not very efficient at doing that. How come?
-
Rhi,
Yes, at least Welby came up with 'I don't know, I don't understand' when asked about suffering.
But why stop there in the face of such an ineluctable contradiction to his claims about "God"?
-
Rhi,
But why stop there in the face of such an ineluctable contradiction to his claims about "God"?
All I can tell you from my time as a believer is that if you experience God as real then you can't reason your way out of it. As you probably know, Welby lost his baby daughter in a car accident - the car was driven by his wife I think. In the face of that suffering god remained real to him.
-
I think certain people are building up a CV of a capricious God here. But even if they are not it is timely to remind people that Christianity proposes the suffering God who suffers that which all of us should suffer i.e. what we inflict on ourselves.
Therefore if one is suffering God is the go to in this case.
God does not only grant us a measure of free will he has granted the universe a measure of aseity, to build and rebuild itself. Therefore life and death are merely stages in the process.
-
Rhi,
All I can tell you from my time as a believer is that if you experience God as real then you can't reason your way out of it. As you probably know, Welby lost his baby daughter in a car accident - the car was driven by his wife I think. In the face of that suffering god remained real to him.
I didn't know that - how awful. Many I think would have lost their faith faced with that tragedy, so no amount of reason is likely to do so now. In a way it would be gittish even to have the conversation perhaps: if the notion of "heaven" is comforting in these circumstances, what kind of scumbag would want to take that away?
-
Dear Blue,
But why would this "morally good" god of yours give us the illnesses in the first place and then sit back while he waited to see whether we could cure them? I
Did he ( using he because I am lazy ) what I see is humanities race to the bottom, but then maybe God truly has left the building, God has thought, you think your so smart, work it out for yourself, if I can use a very human analogy, sometimes a father can only do so much but then has to cut the tie and say son you are big enough and ugly enough to make your own decisions, but from experience a father still hangs around to offer solace and advice when he can.
We certainly do have within our power, us little gods to reverse suffering, make it a thing of the past, but we stumble along thinking we know better, God gave us a world to enjoy, not destroy.
Gonnagle.
-
Rhi,
I didn't know that - how awful. Many I think would have lost their faith faced with that tragedy, so no amount of reason is likely to do so now. In a way it would be gittish even to have the conversation perhaps: if the notion of "heaven" is comforting in these circumstances, what kind of scumbag would want to take that away?
Post of the week.
I take my hat off to you Sir.
-
Reification fallacy:
"Definition: When an abstraction (abstract belief or hypothetical construct) is treated as if it were a concrete, real event or physical entity -- when an idea is treated as if had a real existence."
-
God does not only grant us a measure of free will...
And for an encore, tells a true lie, makes two plus two equal to pi and runs off to hide in the corner of a sphere...
Logical absurdities all.
-
And for an encore, tells a true lie, makes two plus two equal to pi and runs off to hide in the corner of a sphere...
Logical absurdities all.
Nobody is claiming that 2+2=Pi or that spheres have corners or that lies are true........
-
Yes, at least Welby came up with 'I don't know, I don't understand' when asked about suffering.
Though not a theist, the Dalai Lama also has a (to some, disarming) habit of saying "I don't know" when he doesn't know.
-
Nobody is claiming that 2+2=Pi or that spheres have corners or that lies are true........
::) I realize that Vlad.
However, you were claiming that we could have free will from god's point of view, which is equally illogical. That being my point...
-
::) I realize that Vlad.
However, you were claiming that we could have free will from god's point of view, which is equally illogical. That being my point...
I think you need more data for your argument.
Mine is foreknowledge is not foreordination.
-
I think you need more data for your argument.
Mine is foreknowledge is not foreordination.
Here we go again. Perhaps you could do better than last time (when you just gave up answering)?
Everything that happens, including our decisions, is either the result of deterministic processes or (possibly) randomness (or a combination). Logically, there is nothing else; to the extent something isn't determined, it is random (not determined being what random means).
Our consciousness is clearly intractably complex and, for all practical purposes (from the human point of view) we have freedom to do as we wish. From an omni-god's point of view, however, the whole process would not only be clear and visible but, since it would have designed everything that influences our choices, entirely under its control. It might be, of course, that god has introduced some genuinely random element, but that wouldn't our responsibility either.
The whole idea of an omni god judging us is illogical drivel.
-
That is a good question but a lousy conclusion.
But you have no answer.
Take our last exchange on the subject:
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=12055.150
If we live in a world initiated by the tri-Omni God the this is it! He is entirely responsible for all that happens. Whether or not we have free-will is irrelevant. He was the creator. He pressed go. At that point he became responsible for everything that happened.
As I have said before, if you created a robot with "free-will" and knew what it's future "free" choices were, and it went on to kill someone, you would (hopefully) be held to account for it's actions.
-
...
As I have said before, if you created a robot with "free-will" and knew what it's future "free" choices were, and it went on to kill someone, you would (hopefully) be held to account for it's actions.
If it killed another "robot" in its simulated universe, why care one way or the other?
-
If it killed another "robot" in its simulated universe, why care one way or the other?
If the other robot belonged to someone then that person would obviously care in the same way that if Vlad's robot smashed up their car.
If the robot was sentient then we (well me anyway) would car in the same way that we would if it killed any other sentient creature.
Regardless of if anyone cares or not, Vlad would still be ultimately responsible for his robots actions.
-
Ah ... like some of the spats between Poseidon and Athene ... or between the other gods. Nevertheless, isn't it clear that "responibilty" is another of those man-made fictions?
-
Udayana,
If it killed another "robot" in its simulated universe, why care one way or the other?
Because if we're all "robots", caring is what we'd have been designed to do. It's not a choice (except maybe for that faulty batch that came off the production line that Friday afternoon when the parts bin had run out of caring chips who became the sociopaths).
Incidentally, I did reply a while back to your post to me lest you think I'd ignored you.
-
If the supreme cosmic mega-being has endowed us with free will then I wonder just whose benefit that is for.
Perhaps it was for the creator's benefit so that we could pander to his ego with spontaneous outbursts of love.
What's more, rather than programming humanity to treat each other with love and kindness, the supreme cosmic mega-being chose to give us free will. That way he could ensure that we had warfare, murder, rape, theft, fraud, etc
Perhaps we should have been programmed. Then we could have had our love and we would have avoided the excess baggage of death, destruction and suffering that seems to go hand-in-hand with free will.
Whatever enjoyment the supreme cosmic mega-being gets from the love of a minority group of humans, it comes at a terrible cost to mankind.
-
Udayana,
Because if we're all "robots", caring is what we'd have been designed to do. It's not a choice (except maybe for that faulty batch that came off the production line that Friday afternoon when the parts bin had run out of caring chips who became the sociopaths).
Yes, the robots might care, if that is part of their programming or something developed out of it. Or, in a slightly different analogy, a character in a novel may suffer terribly, but outside of that context it's of no consequence; it's not considered real.
In our little human world we have invented all sorts of ideas, from concepts such as "ownership", "responsibility", "rights" even morality itself, that don't have existence outside patterns formed in our brains. Gods and spirits and so on are part of this fiction we have created, added to try and make life feel as if it had some kind of consistency and meaning or justification.
Incidentally, I did reply a while back to your post to me lest you think I'd ignored you.
I saw msg #131, thanks. Although I don't have the same view of theism/anti-theism as you I was happy with your explanations for yours - except maybe the idea of "default settings" - as if we actually were some kind of designed robots.
-
Ah ... like some of the spats between Poseidon and Athene ... or between the other gods. Nevertheless, isn't it clear that "responibilty" is another of those man-made fictions?
Well yes, I would agree it is man made (well maybe other sentient creatures also have ideas about it. Not sure what that has to do with whether it is fictional or not? Clearly we are the responsible agent for our actions, if I was to punch you on the nose then I would be the agent responsible for you bleeding nose. to what extent I can be held responsible in terms of what sanctions may be applied to me is a different question though.
-
Udayana,
Yes, the robots might care, if that is part of their programming or something developed out of it. Or, in a slightly different analogy, a character in a novel may suffer terribly, but outside of that context it's of no consequence; it's not considered real.
In our little human world we have invented all sorts of ideas, from concepts such as "ownership", "responsibility", "rights" even morality itself, that don't have existence outside patterns formed in our brains. Gods and spirits and so on are part of this fiction we have created, added to try and make life feel as if it had some kind of consistency and meaning or justification.
Well, I'm not so sure that these two things aren't in different categories. "Ownership", "responsibility" are "real" in that they are testable concepts with practical use in the conduct of intersubjective experience. They are behaviours or attitudes that demonstrably work.
"God", "spirits" etc on the other hand are claims of objective, "our there" fact that some think they have identified as facts for the rest of us too, and moreover that supposedly exist whether or not we exist at all. While belief in the claimed facts may be useful sometimes - for example, to comfort the grieving - I see that objective fact nature of the claim as fundamentally different from the functional facts of "ownership" etc.
I saw msg #131, thanks. Although I don't have the same view of theism/anti-theism as you I was happy with your explanations for yours - except maybe the idea of "default settings" - as if we actually were some kind of designed robots.
I haven't checked, but I'm pretty sure I'd have said default "position" rather than "settings". The altruistic position would have been arrived at by evolutionary processes; settings on the other hand - as you say - imply a programmer or similar to do the setting, which I do not think to be the case.
-
But you have no answer.
Take our last exchange on the subject:
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=12055.150
If we live in a world initiated by the tri-Omni God the this is it! He is entirely responsible for all that happens. Whether or not we have free-will is irrelevant. He was the creator. He pressed go. At that point he became responsible for everything that happened.
As I have said before, if you created a robot with "free-will" and knew what it's future "free" choices were, and it went on to kill someone, you would (hopefully) be held to account for it's actions.
Nope...... if we are capable of responsibility then we are responsible
I think your idea of a human is more robotic than the Robot you propose is human.
You have succumbed to the temptation to ''think drone''.
-
Nope...... if we are capable of responsibility then we are responsible
I think your idea of a human is more robotic than the Robot you propose is human.
You have succumbed to the temptation to ''think drone''.
Rubbish.
If we are created to be responsible then the being who created us is still responsible overall.
Remember he initiated everything knowing how it would turn out.
-
I think you need more data for your argument.
Mine is foreknowledge is not foreordination.
Here we go again. Perhaps you could do better than last time (when you just gave up answering)?
Everything that happens, including our decisions, is either the result of deterministic processes or (possibly) randomness (or a combination). Logically, there is nothing else; to the extent something isn't determined, it is random (not determined being what random means).
Our consciousness is clearly intractably complex and, for all practical purposes (from the human point of view) we have freedom to do as we wish. From an omni-god's point of view, however, the whole process would not only be clear and visible but, since it would have designed everything that influences our choices, entirely under its control. It might be, of course, that god has introduced some genuinely random element, but that wouldn't our responsibility either.
The whole idea of an omni god judging us is illogical drivel.
Guess that's a 'no'...
-
Rubbish.
If we are created to be responsible then the being who created us is still responsible overall.
Remember he initiated everything knowing how it would turn out.
It hasn't turned out yet.
Foreknowledge is not foreordination. In any case we don't exactly know in what fashion God foresees.
-
Udayana,
Well, I'm not so sure that these two things aren't in different categories. "Ownership", "responsibility" are "real" in that they are testable concepts with practical use in the conduct of intersubjective experience. They are behaviours or attitudes that demonstrably work.
"God", "spirits" etc on the other hand are claims of objective, "our there" fact that some think they have identified as facts for the rest of us too, and moreover that supposedly exist whether or not we exist at all. While belief in the claimed facts may be useful sometimes - for example, to comfort the grieving - I see that objective fact nature of the claim as fundamentally different from the functional facts of "ownership" etc.
I think it's just a case of tools for the job. As society changes different belief/mythology can be found to work better, some things don't work as well or fall out of fashion. Actually I think Harari describes this quite well in his broad brush history - though there is loads of detail to object to.
I haven't checked, but I'm pretty sure I'd have said default "position" rather than "settings". The altruistic position would have been arrived at by evolutionary processes; settings on the other hand - as you say - imply a programmer or similar to do the setting, which I do not think to be the case.
Altruism is certainly a tool developed during evolution but how people behave just depends on how they feel and circumstances at any time. In many ways the most equal societies were those of the hunter gatherers but most of the time they seem to have been engaged in fierce warfare with competitive tribes (reading Jared Diamond rather than Harari).
-
It hasn't turned out yet.
So, God's plans/desires could be thwarted then.
Foreknowledge is not foreordination. In any case we don't exactly know in what fashion God foresees.
I agree it isn't necessarily the case that foreknowledge is foreordination, whichever way the ultimate initiator still bears ultimate responsibility.
-
I've been a (horrified) party to a conversation that went something like this:
Bereaved woman; is my mum in heaven?
Vicar: no, sorry
Bereaved woman: but she was a nice person
Vicar: tough shit. She wasn't a Christian. Still, look on the bright side. You are.
Nah! I cannot believe any vicar worth his 'salt' would say "TOUGH SHIT" if sounds yukki it usually is.
Name of vicar and church I want to ask him for myself.
If the woman was a Christian why would she need to ask her vicar if her mum in heaven?
It sounds so unbelievable and ridiculous. :o
Nothing good ever came from eavesdropping... Perhaps you misheard the conversation after all you cannot be sure if you were ear wigging on someone other persons conversation.
-
We are capable of empathy.
We are also capable of making up shit in order to enable us to feel better when we wonder where all the calculators go.
Oh that explains your last post...
Tell me do you feel better? :)
-
He ran a web forum with his missus. And he really was a vicar - CofE.
I wasn't popular there and ended up being chased from the streets with burning brands.
You eavesdropped on a conversation on a forum.
Miracle Miracle however did you manage that? ;D
-
Udayana,
I think it's just a case of tools for the job. As society changes different belief/mythology can be found to work better, some things don't work as well or fall out of fashion. Actually I think Harari describes this quite well in his broad brush history - though there is loads of detail to object to.
Yes, but I was pointing out the category difference: "this painting is beautiful" and "there's a dragon in my garage" could each be described as beliefs that work better or not, but one relates to a subjective opinion and the other to an objective fact. When there's no-one to express an opinion on the painting there is no opinion on the painting; when there's no-one to feed the dragon, he's still there (or not) regardless.
That's the issue with morality: it's in the former category, though some really, really want it to be in the latter - generally for very bad reasons, like the argumentum ad consequentiam, as a proof for "God" etc.
Altruism is certainly a tool developed during evolution but how people behave just depends on how they feel and circumstances at any time. In many ways the most equal societies were those of the hunter gatherers but most of the time they seem to have been engaged in fierce warfare with competitive tribes (reading Jared Diamond rather than Harari).
But I don't think that the exercise of altruism "just depends on how they feel and circumstances at any time" at all. Rather it's instinctive and for the most part automatic, and it's been observed and documented in may species other than out own. It's also been modelled mathematically, and computer simulations show the "quants" programmed to have it to flourish better than those that do not. It takes a supervening factor to override that - dogma being one such, and religious dogma being the example that's most relevant here.
-
Stephen,
I agree it isn't necessarily the case that foreknowledge is foreordination, whichever way the ultimate initiator still bears ultimate responsibility.
I'm not so sure about that. If a god knows what will happen, disapproves of it, could if he so wanted prevent it but sits on his hands instead, then his negligence is getting pretty close to "foreordination". Negligence is well-trodden ground in our legal system for example, and those who could have prevented a criminal act or damage to people or property can be held to be as guilty as the person who actually commits the bad act.
-
Stephen,
I'm not so sure about that. If a god knows what will happen, disapproves of it, could if he so wanted prevent it but sits on his hands instead, then his negligence is getting pretty close to "foreordination". Negligence is well-trodden ground in our legal system for example, and those who could have prevented a criminal act or damage to people or property can be held to be as guilty as the person who actually commits the bad act.
I don't see how the various omni and modified omni gods can avoid predestination. Surely these gods good, bad or indifferent act according to their nature and given the omnis carry that out. There is no room for anything in that case to be different. It isn't evil or good, it just is.
-
NS,
I don't see how the various omni and modified omni gods can avoid predestination. Surely these gods good, bad or indifferent act according to their nature and given the omnis carry that out. There is no room for anything in that case to be different.
Yes, it's an odd notion that such a god would change its mind given that the puzzle is already complete before the events it portrays play out. Why then someone would pray to such a god in a hope that "He" would change his mind is a mystery to me: if little Timmy was going to be cured of his measles then he would always have been cured of his measles, regardless of any supplications by his loved ones.
It isn't evil or good, it just is.
Depends from whose perspective I guess. The god might think, "the actions I carry out (or don't carry out) are necessarily all "good"/"bad" ones because that is my unavoidable nature; theists on the other hand may just use these labels as a sort of confirmation bias: "my God is a god of the omnis; his actions are all good; therefore everything I observe him to do is good, even though I may not be able to rationalise why it is good; therefore god is good".
It's a logical mess though when you posit a god of the omnis and speculate about His morality.
-
I see it as much worse tha this, philosophically. If there is a omni god acting according to its nature, there is no perspective. It acts as it has to, and therefore judging it in any sense, as some form of omni makes no sense. There is no other way for things to be.
-
There's no sense in trying to apply logic to entities that don't exist and have no logically consistent definition.
It doesn't mean that they can't exist as ideas or beliefs in people's minds and affect their emotions, actions or moral choices.
-
Stephen,
I'm not so sure about that. If a god knows what will happen, disapproves of it, could if he so wanted prevent it but sits on his hands instead, then his negligence is getting pretty close to "foreordination". Negligence is well-trodden ground in our legal system for example, and those who could have prevented a criminal act or damage to people or property can be held to be as guilty as the person who actually commits the bad act.
Well I don't think they are necessarily the same if foreknowledge is in reality like getting a sneak preview of things unfolding. So for example say God sets things going and simply sees things unfolding a second before we do, I wouldn't necessarily see that as foreordained in the same way as if he had known the outcome of everything before initiating creation.
As I said to Vlad though. Foreknowledge or foreordained doesn't clear him of his responsibility.
I think this tends to be the case with all the omnis, they are meant in their literal sense until, as you pointed it, it shows God in a bad light, then they have to mean something different and normally portrays a weaker God who is only "a bit" tri-Omni.
-
NS,
I see it as much worse tha this, philosophically. If there is a omni god acting according to its nature, there is no perspective. It acts as it has to, and therefore judging it in any sense, as some form of omni makes no sense. There is no other way for things to be.
Any attempt to bring the rigours of philosophy to "God" collapses very quickly in my experience, but yes - a god of the omnis would just be what it is. Whether though some would ascribe labels like "good" and "bad" to its actions is another matter. I suppose something like "according to my human definition of these terms I can map god's actions agains those definitions and reach a conclusion accordingly" makes a kind of sense though if that's your reference point.
-
Udayana,
There's no sense in trying to apply logic to entities that don't exist and have no logically consistent definition.
It doesn't mean that they can't exist as ideas or beliefs in people's minds and affect their emotions, actions or moral choices.
But there is sense in applying logic to the arguments some attempt to demonstrate the existence of these gods, especially when they would arrogate to themselves various rights and privileges for those beliefs in the public square. That the logic is lost on many here doesn't matter too much for this purpose - it informs the secular society in which we live and that's good enough for me.
-
Stephen,
Well I don't think they are necessarily the same if foreknowledge is in reality like getting a sneak preview of things unfolding. So for example say God sets things going and simply sees things unfolding a second before we do, I wouldn't necessarily see that as foreordained in the same way as if he had known the outcome of everything before initiating creation.
But if "He" gets the sneak preview of, say, a tsunami and sits on His hands nonetheless then his inaction is ordaining it isn't it? Surely you can ordain things by acts of omission as well as by acts of commission can't you?
As I said to Vlad though. Foreknowledge or foreordained doesn't clear him of his responsibility.
I think this tends to be the case with all the omnis, they are meant in their literal sense until, as you pointed it, it shows God in a bad light, then they have to mean something different and normally portrays a weaker God who is only "a bit" tri-Omni.
And therein lies the problem: claim a god of the omnis and the logic collapses in a heap; claim a god not of the omnis and you have to figure out what "He" can't know or do or make good while at the same time be capable of knocking up an entire universe (or maybe lots of them) in his celestial shed.
-
Stephen,
I'm not so sure about that. If a god knows what will happen, disapproves of it, could if he so wanted prevent it but sits on his hands instead, then his negligence is getting pretty close to "foreordination". Negligence is well-trodden ground in our legal system for example, and those who could have prevented a criminal act or damage to people or property can be held to be as guilty as the person who actually commits the bad act.
I had to laugh at negligence being pretty close to foreordination since say a criminal is still deemed responsible for a committed crime whether someone is done for negligence or not.
Secondly Hillside puts himself in the position of cosmic God at a stage when there are competing theories and a good deal of ignorance about the nature of time.
Well meaning no doubt but certainly ludicrous.
-
Well I don't think they are necessarily the same if foreknowledge is in reality like getting a sneak preview of things unfolding. So for example say God sets things going and simply sees things unfolding a second before we do, I wouldn't necessarily see that as foreordained in the same way as if he had known the outcome of everything before initiating creation.
As I said to Vlad though. Foreknowledge or foreordained doesn't clear him of his responsibility.
I think this tends to be the case with all the omnis, they are meant in their literal sense until, as you pointed it, it shows God in a bad light, then they have to mean something different and normally portrays a weaker God who is only "a bit" tri-Omni.
Well as I said before ultimate responsibility is a different thing from responsible for an act.
But supposing we could get a conviction justice would involve deserved restoration and God in Christ not only makes this but undeserved restoration.
Let me put this question. What does God owe us? And why?
-
Stephen,
But if "He" gets the sneak preview of, say, a tsunami and sits on His hands nonetheless then his inaction is ordaining it isn't it? Surely you can ordain things by acts of omission as well as by acts of commission can't you?
Yes. We don't disagree here. If the God is possessed of the other two Omni's then yes, everything happens with his say so. However, it's still true that foreknowledge and foreordination are not necessarily the same. The problem for the theist is when you lump them together. Then you either have to accept that God ordained/allowed the holocaust or you have to reduce the meaning of the omnis to let it off.
And therein lies the problem: claim a god of the omnis and the logic collapses in a heap; claim a god not of the omnis and you have to figure out what "He" can't know or do or make good while at the same time be capable of knocking up an entire universe (or maybe lots of them) in his celestial shed.
Which is exactly what I replied to Vlad. If your reduce foreordained to foreknowledge then you have to answer the question as to whether or not God's will can be thwarted, how would God know that his plan's would come to fruition? I notice there is no answer from him on that.
-
Stephen,
Yes. We don't disagree here. If the God is possessed of the other two Omni's then yes, everything happens with his say so. However, it's still true that foreknowledge and foreordination are not necessarily the same. The problem for the theist is when you lump them together. Then you either have to accept that God ordained/allowed the holocaust or you have to reduce the meaning of the omnis to let it off.
But you still have the concept of culpable negligence to deal with - if I know a building with children in it will burn down at midday on Tuesday, I have the key to enable the fire extinguishers to go off at 11.50, but I choose to keep it in my pocket instead then it seems to me that I have "ordained" the death of those children, even if I wan't the electrician who wrongly wired the plug in the first place. The problem isn't that theists claim that their god has foreknowledge; the problem is that they claim that and they also claim that he could change the future event but chooses not to and that he's all good.
What that would mean is that the children going up in flames must necessarily therefore be "good" - which is precisely the sort of contemptible moral position that, say, William Lane Craig finds himself in when he defends genocide.
Which is exactly what I replied to Vlad. If your reduce foreordained to foreknowledge then you have to answer the question as to whether or not God's will can be thwarted, how would God know that his plan's would come to fruition? I notice there is no answer from him on that.
Sadly, nor will there ever be...
-
Stephen,
But you still have the concept it culpable negligence to deal with - if I know a building with children in it will burn down at midday on Tuesday, I have the key to enable the fire extinguishers to go off at 11.50, but I choose to keep it in my pocket instead then it seems to me that I have "ordained" the death of those children, even if I wan't the electrician who wrongly wired the plug in the first place. The problem isn't that theists claim that their god has foreknowledge; the problem is that they claim that and they also claim that he could change the future event but chooses not to and that he's all good.
But hang on a minute ....aren't you trying to argue that God is responsible.......for everything. And yet here you are talking about who is responsible.
Secondly you have the person responsible only responsible for an accident rather than responsible deliberately.
In other words Hillside bad analogy with hand waving. We saw what you did there.
It seems on a wider scale that God has not retained the keys with which to counteract misfortune.
-
Well as I said before ultimate responsibility is a different thing from responsible for an act.
actually I said that. But glad to see you agree that God is ultimately responsible.
But supposing we could get a conviction justice would involve deserved restoration and God in Christ not only makes this but undeserved restoration.
So God sets in motion a universe in which someone is murdered and the justice for that person is the death of Jesus? Ehh?
Let me put this question. What does God owe us? And why?
Well I can think of few things but number one would be.
If he requires/wants to be in a relationship with me then he should demonstrate his existence to me. Seems fair.
-
Stephen,
But you still have the concept of culpable negligence to deal with - if I know a building with children in it will burn down at midday on Tuesday, I have the key to enable the fire extinguishers to go off at 11.50, but I choose to keep it in my pocket instead then it seems to me that I have "ordained" the death of those children, even if I wan't the electrician who wrongly wired the plug in the first place. The problem isn't that theists claim that their god has foreknowledge; the problem is that they claim that and they also claim that he could change the future event but chooses not to and that he's all good.
We are argreed on this. The thiests problem is that God could act on that foreknowledge and so (by acting or not acting) it is the same as preordained. However, having foreknowledge wouldn't neccesarily mean that you could act to avert a situation, or that you approved of it. Apparently LVG's wife learnt of his sacking before him. To him she had foreknowledge but she didn't (apparently) ordain it.
-
Secondly you have the person responsible only responsible for an accident rather than responsible deliberately.
It wouldn't matter if deliberate or accident. If he set the events in motion he would still be responsible.
-
Stephen,
We are argreed on this. The thiests problem is that God could act on that foreknowledge and so (by acting or not acting) it is the same as preordained. However, having foreknowledge wouldn't neccesarily mean that you could act to avert a situation, or that you approved of it. Apparently LVG's wife learnt of his sacking before him. To him she had foreknowledge but she didn't (apparently) ordain it.
No, but if Ed Woodward had said, "but we won't sack him of you dance a jig in your clogs on the boardroom table" and she'd refused to do so, then she'd be at least a co- pre-ordainer I'd say.
It wouldn't matter if deliberate or accident. If he set the events in motion he would still be responsible.
Just to note that a god of the omnis couldn't do anything "by accident" in any case, and moreover that in my analogy this person/god chose to keep the key in his pocket. That's why he'd be criminally culpable - and I'd say at least partly responsible for "ordaining" the deaths of the children.
-
Stephen,
No, but if Ed Woodward had said, "but we won't sack him of you dance a jig in your clogs on the boardroom table" and she'd refused to do so, then she'd be at least a co- pre-ordainer I'd say.
Not necessarily as that could be construed as an offer with menaces. Anyway that isn't the example I gave. Knowing something before someone else doesn't mean you had a part in determining that outcome.
Just to note that a god of the omnis couldn't do anything "by accident" in any case, and moreover that in my analogy this person/god chose to keep the key in his pocket. That's why he'd be criminally culpable - and I'd say at least partly responsible for "ordaining" the deaths of the children.
If you look back at my posts you will see that I have said on more than one occasion that if there is a God of the omnis then this is the only world that could be, so no, he couldn't do anything by accident.
But rather than argue this irrelevant point with Vlad as to whether or not he could do it by accident or not, it is better, I think, to point out that it doesn't actually matter much. The instigator is still ultimately responsible.
-
Sounds to me like this all-powerful omni-God is, ironically, powerless in that once the ball is set rolling it will follow the planned course no matter what and if this omni-God did intervene then it would imply it got it wrong in the first place.
Makes all those who get involved in praying for divine intercession look daft: since no matter what they pray for either the die is already cast or their omni-God makes mistakes that require correction along the way, and s such isn't really 'omni' at all.
-
Sounds the same as confusing determinism with fatalism?
-
Sounds the same as confusing determinism with fatalism?
I think there is a category error here. In one sense if someone was a deterministic then logically they would be a fatalist but if determinism is true whether someone is is is not a fatalist, is determined and not necessarily logically driven.
-
Yes, one could be either or both. What I meant was wrt. Gordon's post: It could be that xxx set off everything with initial conditions in a determined universe but included it's own future intervention.
(Of-course it is daft, as the premises are false).
-
Yes, one could be either or both. What I meant was wrt. Gordon's post: It could be that xxx set off everything with initial conditions in a determined universe but included it's own future intervention.
(Of-course it is daft, as the premises are false).
Even if so then, presumably, it would know in what circumstances it would intervene and what the intervention would be - but this isn't really intervention: at best it is a plan which gives the appearance of intervention.
The 'omni' notion seems like a mess of contradictions.
-
Hi Gordon,
Even if so then, presumably, it would know in what circumstances it would intervene and what the intervention would be - but this isn't really intervention: at best it is a plan which gives the appearance of intervention.
The 'omni' notion seems like a mess of contradictions.
Yes, it's a curious notion that a god who can only act as His nature requires Him to act can be persuaded to change His mind if people pray hard enough for it to happen. It's a curious notion too that such a god would have a mind to change at all come to think of it.
Divine morality is an oddity too when you think about it. Should we conclude that whatever happens is necessarily good because "God is goodness" so He must make it that way, or does this god allow bad stuff to happen because that's the price He's prepared to pay in exchange for giving us "free" will?
And if that is the price He's prepared to pay how can He be all good as innocent people get hurt that way, and while I'm at it what about the example of someone unable to exercise this supposed free will - a sociopath for example - who sets fire to the orphanage? Why wouldn't an all good god stop him at least?
And then we have innocent people getting hurt when the causal agent of their hurt has nothing to do with "free" will - why would an all good god allow a village to be swept away by a tsunami for example?
Why to put it another way would such a god arrange things so that the world appears to function exactly as you would expect it to function if there was no god at all?
All very rum indeed if you really want to posit a god of the omnis I'd have thought.