Posted on 05/04/2014 12:34:25 PM PDT by Olog-hai
Legendary conservative columnist George Will says he is an atheist. […]
“I’m an amiable, low voltage atheist,” Will explained. “I deeply respect religions and religious people. The great religions reflect something constant and noble in the human character, defensible and admirable yearnings.”
“I am just not persuaded. That’s all,” he added. …
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
Telling me that you know there's a God and what he wants, and that you live by his creed (a creed unaccessible to me), is not humility.
Briefly outlined in #197 and #212.
To someone who doesn't know what reason is, then I'm completely fine with saying "Don't kill or God will send you to the fryer." But I don't think that's a good reason any more than telling my two year old "because I said so". I'm interested in having a discussion about morality with sentient, rational individuals.
One criticism that could be leveled at this description of morality is that announcing a utilitarian standard of morality concerning the well being of sentient beings doesn't justify it.
Detailing the system doesn't justify it, but I thought I made clear that the only supposition one needs to make is that a universe with maximum suffering is worse than a universe with less suffering.
If someone can't make that leap, then I would probably not bother arguing with them, and step away slowly. I don't claim to be able to justify a worldly system of morality to a psychopath.
For example, I could include other mammals, which you exclude.
I exclude animals from the responsibility of morality, since there's no evidence they are cognizant of the moral implications of their actions. There are very faint echoes of morality in animals, like the gorilla example I posted earlier, as well as in the hearts of dog lovers like me. I love my pups and see them as moral creatures since they don't hurt other animals or people, but know that that is likely to be from their nature and not because they have some sort of moral code.
I do not exclude animals from morality when it comes to how humans treat them, and I do believe that causing unnecessary suffering to animals is immoral, for the same reason that a universe with less suffering of living creatures is better than one with maximum suffering.
Someone who delights in the torture of animals is unlikely to be open to my worldly moral justifications in the same way that he's unlikely to be open to your moral justifications based on God. He's a psychopath, and the rules of morality aren't written by such people, nor do your or my justifications break down logically simply because we can't explain things to a crazy person.
If I ask, why should I not be selfish and you reply that when I am selfish I hurt society and I reply, why should I care about society and you point out that societies based on rape, murder, torture, and slavery do not last and eventually fail, I can ask, so what?
This is different from why I gave the example that I did, about societies based on rape murder or torture. I think that those societies falling is an example of some sort of innate nature in us about acting in a moral manner.
I never said that the detrimental societal impact was the ONLY reason for not acting in a moral way. I can give you a whole lot of reasons not to murder someone that have nothing to do with "society" or civilizations.
So, my question is, do you mean that the "laws" of morality, as well as the "laws" of reason and rationality are subject to change?
They are only subject to change if my original supposition changes, that a universe of maximum suffering is indeed undesirable.
If there was some sort of current moral taboo that no longer created suffering, let's say that in 100,000 years mankind had discovered a technology that allowed each human being to control the pain receptors in their brain, then hurting someone might not be of the same moral consequence as it is today, since it wouldn't cause suffering in the same way.
But I think it is, in the scheme of things, rather unchangeable. We've learned in the human experience, that no matter what your religion, geography, creed or color, the same sorts of things seem to be objectively beneficial to the human condition.
I can appreciate appealing to the extremes as you've done here, such as with the Taliban. But to me, these sorts of questions about suffering are parallel with mental and physical health.
You claim that without divine intervention, the Taliban's version of morality is the same as mine. Yet if the Taliban said, "Vomiting 24 hours a day and chopping your limbs off is just as healthy as eating lean meat and vegetables, and exercising every day", you probably wouldn't have to appeal to the supernatural to say that they're wrong. They're objectively wrong because we have an understanding of "health", and we know it's not "healthy" to mutilate yourself and vomit all day, and we know this without divine permission.
Correction “administering medicine to the dead.”
No, they are caricatures of real-world discussions.
How is belief in a God less humble than disbelief, anyway? The latter elevates a moving piece of dirt to the “highest” form of life in the perceived universe, after all.
Haha, and that's not a caricature? How does saying "I don't think God writes books" translate into "moving piece of dirt to the “highest” form of life in the perceived universe".
Let me put it this way.
There are thousands of holy books in the world. You believe that they are all frauds, except one.
I just believe they're all frauds. They're ALL written by man.
What's more likely? That a loving God inspired all of his people in only one book, and the rest are deceived? Or that it's all man made?
I know where I stand.
They are actually equally likely, whether that is your only two choices or not. To definitely exclude one possibility without definite proof is a narrow-minded approach, with all due respect.
What’s more likely? That a loving God inspired all of his people in only one book, and the rest are deceived? Or that it’s all man made?
“To definitely exclude one possibility without definite proof is a narrow-minded approach, with all due respect.”
It’s best to exclude all explanations when no proof exists, with all due respect.
That’s not very scientific. It’s fair to provide hypotheses in response to observation.
It’s very scientific. Hypotheses are based on observation and evidence and have to be able to be tested, not just stories made up out of thin air.
That’s what I’m saying. Existence is not a story made up out of thin air.
Neither gives us objective morality.
Conscience is subjective.
Morality based on measures of pain/pleasure, otherwise known as utilitarianism, is only subjective. That is, things like pain, happiness, suffering and pleasure cannot be measured.
A moral system based on increasing happiness and decreasing suffering cannot be objectively explained.
Are the laws of logic changeable, too?
I have not renounced reason, and I know what reason is. I am also NOT saying that you have renounced reason or do not use it, or that you do not know what morality is or don't have moral sensibilities. What I am saying is that your atheistic worldview cannot account for your use of reason or ethics because there is no basis in that system for abstract, invariant universals in a naturalistic, material, ever-changing universe governed by chance.
If people determine moral and ethical values for themselves, why do you express moral indignation (eg, your #333 and elsewhere in this thread) over some evil act if those who commit said evil are not really doing anything evil, given the values which they have chosen for themselves? On one hand you seem to assume that some acts are inherently evil and on the other hand you seem to be arguing that they are evil because they violate your stipulated, utilitarian standard that a universe with maximum suffering is worse than a universe with less suffering. To me it seems inconsistent and arbitrary to express moral outrage if people determine moral and ethical values for themselves and they happen to violate your stipulated standards.
If someone can't make that leap, then I would probably not bother arguing with them, and step away slowly.
That leap of what? Faith?
I don't claim to be able to justify a worldly system of morality to a psychopath.
There you go again, assuming that there is an abstract, universal, prescriptive noetic standard that applies. But is this standard changeable, too, as you have stated is the case with reason and morality?
I am not asking you to justify or account for your use of logic, reason and morality to a crazy psychopath; I am asking you how you account for or justify them in a coherent philosophical sense, given your presupposition of an atheistic, naturalistic, materialistic, ever-changing universe governed by chance.
Cordially,
I don't know. I think it's irrelevant. I would think that the laws of logic could be improved over time.
What I am saying is that your atheistic worldview cannot account for your use of reason or ethics because there is no basis in that system for abstract, invariant universals in a naturalistic, material, ever-changing universe governed by chance.
This is statement, nor really an argument. The 'basis' is the supposition about suffering that I mentioned earlier. If people really have a hard time understanding the real world basis for morality, you can start with the supposition about maximum suffering. If you can get them to agree on that then you have something to work with. If you can't, they are unconvincable most likely.
If people determine moral and ethical values for themselves...
I never said people determine it for themselves. They recognize if based on a realization that more suffering vs. less suffering is not a desirable world to live in.
In no way have you demonstrated how all of this would be improved by a theistic creator, especially considering that there's no evidence for one.
If the creator has real world reasons for imposing morality, what is gained above and beyond those real world reasons by a creator? All of the evidence (100% of it) points to the creator being a projection of ourselves, and manmade.
That is why most people have an aversion to the morality of the Old Testament, because our morality has improved and changed since then. We've changed, and the morality of the "creator" has changed as a result.
I am asking you how you account for or justify them in a coherent philosophical sense, given your presupposition of an atheistic, naturalistic, materialistic, ever-changing universe governed by chance.
I have accounted for it. There are real world reasons for behaving morally, and these can be justified simply by recognizing the above supposition about suffering. An amorphous creator and a;peals to the supernatural add nothing of value.
Objective morality isn't "given", it is recognized. If it were given it wouldn't be objective.
Eventually you have to weigh one instance of pain against another—that’s where the subjectivity is more obvious. Can’t be measured.
Objective means external. All moral systems other than divine command originate internal to humans.
Yep, it might come to that point. No one ever said it was going to be easy.
But appealing to a Creator doesn't add anything to the process, especially when the translation of the Creator's wishes is so contradictory, and mostly archaic. Peoples' idea of a divine creator is the least objective thing imaginable.
All your statements are dependent on first accepting the premise that God doesn’t exist.
If God does exist, your arguments are meaningless.
It needlessly complicates the issue.
Our whole discussion has been based on the assumption that there are laws of logic and rationality that apply and that this is a rational discussion about world views. How can that assumption be irrelevant? If the laws of logic can be changed in the sense of being improved then we could just agree that contradictory systems are equally rational and call that an improvement. I think you would agree with me that agreeing to violate the law of identity and the law of noncontradiction would be absurd.
In no way have you demonstrated how all of this would be improved by a theistic creator, especially considering that there's no evidence for one.
If the creator has real world reasons for imposing morality, what is gained above and beyond those real world reasons by a creator? All of the evidence (100% of it) points to the creator being a projection of ourselves, and manmade.
Epistemologically, how could you possibly know such a thing? You would have to have experienced everything that has transpired since the beginning of the universe (assuming that it had a beginning) to be in a position to know that there is no evidence for a theistic creator. You would have to have universal knowledge. You would have to be omniscient. You would have to be God.
I'm pretty sure you do not have universal experience. You admitted as much when you said that you don't know whether the laws of logic are changeable or not.
That is why most people have an aversion to the morality of the Old Testament, because our morality has improved and changed since then. We've changed, and the morality of the "creator" has changed as a result.
The Scriptures themselves are full of examples of peoples' aversion to God's morality, from the Fall of man in his attempt at self-deification and autonomy onward. I would simply note that your claim that morality has 'improved' assumes a standard by which morality itself is measured, but to what are you comparing the universe when you assume that there is some standard that goes beyond it, or that there is some aspect of it that is not as it ought to be?
Cordially,
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.