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 ...
I can’t think of a reason. That’s why I view theism as inherently authoritarian, perhaps the root of authoritarianism.
You’re telling me there’s no reason for us to have any say or influence, and then you turn around and complain that the system is authoritarian.
You’re contradicting yourself. No wonder you’re having trouble with this.
Can you think of a reason to question omnipotence?
I'm not complaining about it, because I'm not a theist and don't see evidence for its existence. I'm just observing the fact that if such a celestial dictatorship existed, it would be authoritarian.
My "if" "then" statement that if the laws of logic are not absolute, invariant and universal then they reduce to relativistic preferences for thinking rather than prescriptive requirements is in the form of an argument.
I cannot predict whether or not the principle of reason and logic will change, morph, or be cast aside for something else 100,000 years in the future. As I said earlier, this doesn't keep us from having a discussion about morality now.
Why wait 100,000 years?
All change, morality now. All I cast aside future. As I said was the future. As I said earlier, this doesn't keep us from having else 100,000 years in thing a discussion and logic will change, morph, or somethis doesn't keep us from having else 100,000 yearlier, the principle of reason about morality now. All change, morality not predict whethe for somethis doesn't keep us from having a discussion and logic will I said was thing a discussion about morph, or be cannot the for now. All I said was
I haven't argued against "abstract universals", in fact you could say I've been arguing for one in particular. You are a master in the sophisticated argumentative technique known as "putting words in other people's mouths". You might be used to getting away with it, but not with me.
As I said, if the principles of reason and logic can change, morph or be cast aside for something else then they reduce to relativistic preferences for thinking rather than prescriptive requirements. I think I have proved the point and I think you have too, no doubt inadvertently, by attempting to hold to a world view that you yourself are demonstrating in your posts as self-contradictory.
I haven't argued against "abstract universals", in fact you could say I've been arguing for one in particular.
Not in a coherent, consistent manner. The laws of logic are presuppositions of coherent thinking but people break them regularly. If they are not invariant then a statement can be both true and false in the same sense at the same time. Then a baseball player can be on the field and not on the field at the same time and in the same manner. There is no room in your postulated ever-changing universe of matter in motion governed by chance for anything invariant, abstract and universal.
You are a master in the sophisticated argumentative technique known as "putting words in other people's mouths". You might be used to getting away with it, but not with me.
"Putting words in other people's mouths" or "getting away with something" presupposes a fixed criterion for what does and does not constitute acceptable argumentation, which makes no sense unless it is objectively wrong to argue in certain ways. Based on your own finite reasoning, which is limited in the scope of its use and experiences, you are in no position to pronounce on what is universally true or to dictate prescriptive, universal laws of thought, especially in an ever-changing universe of matter in motion governed by chance. You are refuting yourself by stating on one hand that the laws of logic can change and then on the other hand, relying on them not to change in order for me not to "get away" with some allegedly improper manner of argumentation.
Induction is broader than just the scientific method.
I know. But you don't even understand the problem of induction. If you have found a solution to Hume on the matter please appraise the world of it.
Cordially,
...they reduce to relativistic preferences for thinking rather than prescriptive requirements...
You keep repeating this like a dog with a bone, but it's more of a flawed observation than an argument.
Yes, a moral system based on the supposition that less suffering of living things is preferable to maximum suffering is a relativistic preference, since morality only governs human beings and how they interact with themselves and the universe. The flaw in your reasoning is that a "preference" DOES have requirements. If I want to live a healthy life, there are requirements for that. If you want to have a morally functional society or civilization, there are also requirements for that.
So my retort to this system being "reduced to relativistic preferences for thinking rather than prescriptive requirements", is "so what"? Who cares?
Not in a coherent, consistent manner.
It's been entirely coherent, and I've mapped it out numerous times in previous posts. I never said that I'm in a "position to pronounce on what is universally true or to dictate prescriptive, universal laws of thought, especially in an ever-changing universe", only to provide a theoretical framework for a system of morality that isn't reliant on theism.
Saying that living in a moral universe is "relativistic" isn't a criticism, nor does it debunk the arguments I've made for morality.
A real argument would be like the guy earlier who said you couldn't base a moral system on alleviating suffering because suffering was "subjective" and "can't be measured". I don't think that's a valid argument either, but at least it's an argument. If you had a legitimate criticism of my worldview that offered a superior version of morality that was based on theistic principles, you'd lay it out, whether it be a milquetoast, amorphous, unitarian theism or a fire and brimstone evangelical theism.
Morality without theism is possible, and I and others have shown that. Requiring that I somehow prove that the laws of reason and logic are cosmically unchanging and universal is a superfluous and unreasonable requirement, and it doesn't really disprove anything. I'm simply not able to make assertions that you or I couldn't possibly know, such as whether the mechanics of reason and logic in a million years will be identical to our understanding of them now.
I know. But you don't even understand the problem of induction.
Induction works just fine when discussing theism. You use it every day when you make the choice not to worship Thor or Apollo. The point is that there isn't any universal standard of morality based on theism, and it's up to us to figure it out. It will take some hard work and critical thinking, but we really don't have any choice as to whether or not to pursue it.
I don't know much about Bahnsen, but in a quick review of some of his stuff, he seems to have been an advocate of the transcendental argument for God.
I find the vast presuppositions that form the TAG to be a far greater leap that the ones I put forward. This suggests that maybe your argument should be with those who say that faith is the grounding for a belief in God, and not logic and science.
If you throw out prescriptive requirements for logic and reasoning it becomes impossible to have a rational discussion. If you want to have relativistic preferences for thinking then you have no basis or grounds at all for objecting to someone who wants to have different relativistic preferences for thinking. So If the Taliban want to have different moral preferences than you then I just say, "so what" Who cares?
It's been entirely coherent, and I've mapped it out numerous times in previous posts. I never said that I'm in a "position to pronounce on what is universally true or to dictate prescriptive, universal laws of thought, especially in an ever-changing universe", only to provide a theoretical framework for a system of morality that isn't reliant on theism.
You demonstrate the absurdity of an atheistic world view when you state on one hand that the laws of logic can change and then on the other hand, you rely on them to be invariant in order for me not to "get away" with some allegedly improper manner of argumentation.
If you are not in a position to pronounce on what is universally true or to dictate prescriptive, universal laws of thought, especially in an ever-changing universe, then everyone else is free to disregard your utilitarian theoretical framework for a system of morality that isn't reliant on theism.
Cordially,
Not at all. The ideas I put forward are admittedly based on a supposition that less suffering is better than maximum suffering, and a double blind assumption that one doesn't know where one is in the pecking order of a society or civilization. So the Taliban couldn't function under this system since they seek to increase suffering, and wouldn't want to be the recipient of that suffering if they found themselves on the other side of it. For the Taliban to attempt to use their ideology under such a system, they wouldn't know whether they would even be part of the Taliban, or an apostate.
It is a requirement that one accept that less suffering is better in order for one to buy into my argument.
However, whatever that leap may be, it's a much less smaller leap than to ask someone to accept the amorphous, non-specific, non-binding, and altogether meaningless idea of "God", especially in the context of your buddy Greg Bahnsen's transcendental argument for God, which is as meaningless as saying "All knowledge is possible and comes from Zeus".
...everyone else is free to disregard your utilitarian theoretical framework for a system of morality that isn't reliant on theism.
Of course people are free to disregard it. But what they can't do is argue against it, at least not effectively as we've seen here with you. People are free to disregard whatever they wish, just as I've disregarded a morality that is dependent on theism. The difference is that I can argue effectively against a theistic basis for morality, and have done so quite brilliantly, thank you.
Tying this in with your post #479, it’s clear you mean to say that your dislike for the authority of God explains the one category of belief—the category defined as an ethical rejection of God.
As distinct from your factual rejection of God.
The question really is: which came first, your ethical rejection of God or your factual rejection of him?
In order to even make an argument in the first place you have accept that there are prescriptive, universal, invariant laws of logic that apply. That's why it is incoherent for you to assume on one hand that the laws of logic can change and then on the other hand, you invoke them (assuming them as invariant) in order for me not to "get away" with some allegedly improper manner of argumentation, You have not yet answered this challenge regarding the inconsistency and arbitrariness of your reasoning.
The whole argument (which you deny is even an argument) is NOT that you do not use the laws of logic, it is that you cannot account for the laws of logic themselves on your premise.
People are free to disregard whatever they wish, just as I've disregarded a morality that is dependent on theism.
Well, except for your post #333 where you expressed a level of moral indignation rivaling that of any Bible Thumper, then yes.
Cordially,
Look, this has been a cute trick, but it's just not working. It's perfectly reasonable to say that we don't know all that is possible to know about logic and reason, and it's hubristic to think that we do.
And I can see what you're trying to do here, as you've unintentionally tipped your hand by basically cutting and pasting Greg Bahnsen's criticisms of Bertrand Russell's use of logic and tried to apply them to my arguments for a non-theistic morality.
The reason you're doing it is pretty straightforward.
For decades, or centuries, the theistic show-stopping question to non-theists has been "Where does you morality come from?"
Non-theists always hemmed and hawed, and reasonably so because it is an extremely difficult issue. But the question itself, "Where does your morality come from?" is altogether meaningless.
It doesn't "come from" anywhere in the sense that there's no central authority figuring it out and writing it down for us all to follow. Non-theists like myself have gotten better at answering the question, especially when you couple it with some push back against the theist, who very obviously does not get their morality from the Bible, which is in some cases more concerned with whether women wear hats in church than condemning slavery (remember, it's an Iron Age book, written by Iron Age men, using Iron Age morality). So guys like you and Bahnsen went a step further and said "OK, you have a model for morality, but it's dependent on logic. Where does you logic come from?"
No doubt once we answer that, you'll then ask, "Well where does reason come from?" Then we'll get into the infinite regression until I'm asking you "Where does God "come from", and you say, "He's eternal and uncaused", or some other such nonsense.
Understand this very clearly; answering any question about origins by saying "It comes from God" is entirely, completely, and totally meaningless. It doesn't mean anything more than that saying "Morality, knowledge, and logic come from Odin."
Totally, utterly, meaningless.
So I can confidently discuss these things knowing what your agenda is.
Bahnsen's arguments were specifically geared towards Bertrand Russell, and trying to shift the argument to the roots of logic is a non sequitur. You can't argue against this non-theistic model for morality by saying that it must exist only where one can accept that logic is unchanging. The fact that logic might change a million years into the future does not keep one from understanding and accepting it, no matter how many times you cut and past Greg Bahnsen quotes.
Juss sayin
As distinct from your factual rejection of God.
You are correct.
Most of the problems with the authority of God I've learned from the "anti-theist" side of the argument; those people who are distinct from other non-theists who say "I don't believe in God, but I wish there was one." The anti-theist says "There's no evidence for God, but I'm glad there is not." The reason being that living in a single, unalterable, celestial dictatorship that offers an eternal life of praising the creator for trillions of years is almost as unpalatable as going to hell and being tortured for trillions of years. Anti-theists view the idea of heaven much like going to church and never being able to leave, which I think even some Christians wouldn't view favorably.
The question really is: which came first, your ethical rejection of God or your factual rejection of him?
I don't have a problem answering this in the context of our discussion, but I will say that I don't accept the general premise of the concept of "rejection". I haven't "rejected God" any more than I've "rejected" Santa Claus, leprechauns, Thor, Apollo, Vishnu, or Allah. They're all part of the same imaginary constructs that men have come up with to explain the universe.
However, the answer to your question is that the factual 'rejection' in my mind would have to come first, at least in my case.
Rejecting the ethics of the God of Abraham would have to come after the 'rejection' of God's existence, since I would have no place to dictate ethics to a supreme, unalterable being. Once you can accept that there's no evidence for the monotheistic God(s), it becomes possible to 'reject' the ethics of the Holy Books, and understand that they reflect the morality of the ancient peoples who wrote it.
I like the way you put it—living in a celestial dictatorship and the part about being stuck in church forever. These are the images we have to deal with.
If the Bible is not true, then we can relax and basically not really worry about it because it’s not a celestial dictatorship—it’s a fairy tale.
But if the Bible is true, then Satan is “who deceives the whole world.” That means making us think of God as a dictator, at best a sort of mean kindergarten teacher.
But again—if the Bible is true, then this image of God is necessarily false and is in fact a deception. If the Bible is true, being with God in heaven will be greater than the greatest pleasure we ever experience on earth.
To the anti-theist, being under 24 hour surveillance (both in action and in thought) is incompatible with happiness.
If the Bible is true, you are only judged based on a single thought you have (do you accept Christ). Your actions are completely irrelevant.
It also calls into question how I could be happy with other friends and members of my family enduring everlasting torture because they didn't think as I did.
If I were a Christian father, I would want to spend eternity with my children, whether it be Heaven or Hell. If my son or daughter were in Hell and were going to experience trillions of years of torture, I would want to be there with them.
For me, it doesn't take long to get to the point where thinking about this whole system of eternal redemption, heaven and hell, and omnipotent creators just becomes silly. There is NO POSSIBLE WAY that this is how the universe is set up, and I'm very glad that there's absolutely no evidence for a heaven, a hell, or an omniscient creator.
But people’s ideas of happiness come from familiarity with the world, not familiarity with the joy of heaven.
Our typical speculations—including speculation about family members being in heaven or hell—is based on worldly standards. These standards are necessarily derived from what we experience in this world, in the absence of any direct knowledge of heaven or hell. Therefore, whether we affirm the existence of God or deny it, our belief is based on faith.
If God is real, then he is a being of perfect justice, love and mercy. We can’t know these attributes of God until we are in his presence in heaven.
It would be silly to expect his creation, under the curse of a fallen world and the deception of Satan, to understand, intuit or to feel what the reality of God’s love, justice and mercy is like.
If the Bible is true, then everything you see and experience is evidence for God. The only way to conclude otherwise is first to choose atheism and then to rationalize that there’s “no evidence.”
If you don’t care about the eternal suffering of your non-Christian family members once you’re in heaven, why would you care about their eternal souls in this life?
If the Bible is true, there is no sorrow in heaven.
What God does about anyone is just—of that we can be certain.
God is the essence of justice. His justice is perfect. When we have full knowledge of it, we will understand the injustice of any alternative.
If our familial relationships are meaningless in heaven, it makes no sense why they should be of consequence on Earth. What good is a 60-90 year blip in the real world versus trillions of years in eternity. None of that even comes close to resembling reason, truth, or justice in any rational sense.
It sounds a lot more like Brave New World, where soma helps everyone forget all of their worries and sorrows.
The more you describe it, the more the anti-theists make sense.
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.