Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
That's not the purpose of this thread. It's gotten way off-topic since I've been gone, but still....
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
To the Anti-Religious
- Thread starter Storm
- Start date
Commoner
Headache
You should tell that to the person making the claim.
Dunemeister
Well-Known Member
I'll keep trying to keep up, but it seems it's a losing battle.
I've repeatedly shown this to be begging the question of the relevance of evidence to the rationality of belief. You have not provided a good argument that all beliefs require evidence to be rationally held. You have SAID so but never argued so. You have tried to argue that it's so for Christian belief, but there too you have begged the question. I'll get into that in a tick.
In my comment about conversion, I was trying to refocus us on the case. The case isn't one where I'm trying to prove the truth of Christianity to you. This might occur, for instance were I trying to convert you. In such a case, where you remained skeptical, evidence might be required to demonstrate the probability that Christianity is true. Our case is different. In our case, we are assessing the rationality of a hypothetical Christian believer. Is a person rational for believing Christianity where it is agreed that the evidence is sufficient to support actual belief or where the Christian came to believe it without appeal to any evidence whatsoever? Some say such Christians are irrational for believing as they do, presumably because they don't have (enough) evidence.
I have tried to explain the distinction philosophers make between basic beliefs and evidentiary beliefs. A basic belief is one that receives its warrant without appeal to other beliefs, either actually or theoretically. As it turns out, most of our beliefs are like that. Our cognitive economy includes such things as memory, perception, credulity (believing the testimony of others), and a priori (necessarily true) beliefs, etc. All these can (and frequently do) receive warrant in the basic way. If a belief is warranted in the basic way, that means (among other things) that it was produced by (1) properly functioning cognitive faculties (2) successfully aimed at truth (3) in a congenial cognitive environment. Where a belief is not warranted, one of these conditions is not met.
Christians add to the list. They say we also have something called the sensus divinitatus (sense of the divine), which is where we (all of us) get our knowledge of God and morality from.
Christians further say that our noetic establishment has been damaged by sin such that the modules responsible for beliefs about God and morality have been terribly damaged. It's as if we have all been born with poor spiritual and ethical vision. Sin has also damaged our affective faculties such that we don't love and hate the right things. So even if our noetic faculties were working properly, we would hate the information provided and therefore not come to believe it. Think of a case where you hate an uncle for some reason. You find out your uncle is extremely generous, giving most of his money to charity and in his will, several million to you. Let's stipulate that as a matter of fact, he really was generous. Now your hatred may cause you to doubt that your uncle was generous. You might doubt his motives, saying he did it for the sake of his reputation or whatever. In any case, you probably wouldn't come to the conclusion that your uncle is generous.
To overcome this, Christians say, God has provided IIHS. Among other things, IIHS repairs the damage to some degree or other. Further, IIHS becomes itself a source of warrant for Christian beliefs. That is, Christian beliefs are warranted in the basic way, not by appeal to evidence.
All I say about this is that IF Christianity is true, it is probably warranted in this way, or in some other way very much like it. All I say is that this is possible in the broadly logical sense.
The critic of Christianity, at least the one who says that Christian belief is irrational, is therefore MISSING THE POINT by asking the Christian to prove Christianity is true. Christians don't need to have an argument to rationally believe as they do, at least if Christianity is true. What is needed, for the irrationality complaint to go through successfully, is an argument that Christianity is in fact false. THAT KIND of argument would provide the Christian with a defeater for their beliefs.
And I think some of my conversation partners have gotten the impression that, because I take Christian belief to receive its warrant basically, it is therefore indefeasable. Not so. A belief may have warrant at one time but not at another. Perhaps I was warranted initially in my Christian belief; later, I am apprised of a powerful atheological argument. Now if that atheological argument is a good one, and if it provides an actual defeater, and if I understand the argument, I now have a defeater for my Christian belief. It is no longer warranted to the degree it was before. I am now in the throes of an intellectual/spiritual crisis.
What DOESN'T provide a defeater is what my conversations have been saying. My partners have continually made the claim that "all beliefs require evidence." That's clearly false. I've given several examples of beliefs that are warranted without evidence, so clearly that's not true. The rejoinder has been that "Christian belief is extraordinary so requires extraordinary evidence". That's also false because, as I've said, it's possible for Christian belief, if it is true, to be warranted without evidence, extraordinary or otherwise, but by means of IIHS.
The rejoinder here has been that I have no evidence for the IIHS, no reason to believe that there is such a thing, and so my belief in IIHS is irrational. Well, as with the rest of Christian belief, the lack of evidence is not relevant. IIHS is part of Christian belief, so belief in it will also be warranted the same way as any other part of Christian belief, namely via IIHS, not through any argument. I don't believe in IIHS because of some nifty argument. Rather, I believe in IIHS in the properly basic way.
And THAT's why I've been arguing this whole time that, if you want to say that it is impossible that Christianity receives warrant the way I've described, you must argue that Christianity is in fact false.
I realize that this style of argumentation may be somewhat new for some. Part of the reason for this has to do with my denial of the importance of evidence. Let me now just say where evidence is important. Evidence is important in those cases where knowledge is not possible in a basic way. For instance, a CSI agent at a crime scene cannot know in the basic way who killed the victim (unless the agent is psychic, in which case her belief is warranted for her but not for us). The CSI agent must pick through trace evidence and other evidence to piece together what happened. When she is done, the agent makes a probabilistic case against a person. The belief that the butler did it receives its warrant, therefore, by way of evidence.
So how is this different from the case for Christianity? To believe it, shouldn't one be like that CSI agent, piecing together evidence from what is available in the world, and then arguing by way of "best explanation" or something other to the conclusion that there must be a god? Well, perhaps that's possible for bare theism (although there too I think there are insurmountable problems). But there's no way one could do that for specifically Christian belief (creation, fall, divine call of Israel, incarnation, the dual nature of Christ, atonement, resurrection, ascention, deposit of the Spirit, inclusion of Gentiles in the people of God, future judgment, presence of Christ at Eucharist...). If such beliefs are to receive warrant by way of evidence, how would that even go? Yet such beliefs are important to salvation and spiritual growth -- at least from a Christian perspective they are. So it being impossible to warrantedly believe these things on the basis of evidence, on the model of knowledge I am describing, God provided IIHS to give people access to warrant for these beliefs. So I hear about these doctrines, and then I believe them as a result of IIHS.
But is IIHS rational? Well, why not? How might basic beliefs be rational? Well, they would have to be produced by cognitive faculties functioning properly according to a design plan successfully aimed at truth and operating in a cognitive environment for which they were designed. It seems to me that IIHS meets these requirements. It is indeed a cognitive mechanism. Since it's God, it's functioning properly. Its function is to provide true beliefs, and since God designed the system (indeed, IS the system), the design is a good one.
So is IIHS foolproof? Infallible? Surprisingly, no! Here's where the cognitive environment condition comes in. Just as my vision might be impaired when there is soap in my eyes, so my spiritual sight might be impaired under certain conditions. Perhaps I have suffered a severe trauma with my father that makes it difficult for me to view God as a loving father (words I take to be oxymoronic, say). Until the effects of that trauma are healed, I won't really believe "God is a loving father," even though IIHS constantly impresses the truth of that proposition on my awareness. With respect to that belief, I am calloused and insensitive. As a result, the belief "God is a loving father" is not warranted (even though, ex hypothesis, true).
Dunemeister
Well-Known Member
My bad.
Dunemeister
Well-Known Member
Ironically, I can agree with you about how the Kalam argument fails, yet it doesn't move me one iota. It need not. However, the probabilistic causation you speak of doesn't actually harm Craig's case. Things are probabilistic from our point of view; that doesn't mean there wasn't a cause or that it was spontaneous. Moreover, you've said these things have no "evident" cause. What follows? That they have no cause, or that our physics is incomplete? In any case, the intuition that all things that begin to exist have causes is far stronger than observations from theoretical physics that themselves are dependent on arcane mathematics that only a few of us can even hope to recognize, let alone understand. But as I said, I fully agree that there are problems with the arguments. At best, they are probabilistic, and in any case, they themselves are not sufficient to bear the weight of Christian belief.
The word "sin" has multiple meanings. It can refer to an individual act of wrongdoing. But it can also refer to our fallen condition. That is, humanity has fallen into a deplorable state in which we have lost our original righteousness. As a result of that, our affective and cognitive systems are dysfunctional. That dysfunction in turn results in more sins (individual acts of wrongdoing).
Well, we are created in the image of God. We have a kind of "background memory" a sort of vague, inarticulate rememberance of our status as God's vicegerents. We have what you might call a "sense of the divine." That we have this faculty explains the agreement across cultures; damage to the faculty accounts for the disagreements. Evolution (yawn) is utterly irrelevant.
Right, because we have all been created in the image and likeness of God (on a Christian view).
Based on what is it "unlikely." I happen to have studied quite a bit of Roman history. The fact is that, although the Romans were very good at keeping records, we don't have one millionth of the empire's governance records. Most of what we think we know about Roman government is based on the shakiest of grounds. Indeed, a lot of it is pieced together through archaeology, and there we are on thin ice indeed. It is entirely likely that the mention in the gospels is the only evidence we have of this census. There's no particular reason to doubt the mention in the gospels. But once again, as a Christian, my basis for believing the census isn't historical argument.
I suspected as much. This is such a nest of confusions and misapprehensions I won't even go there. (Jesus wasn't really called "Immanuel". Really, now!) Pick up a few tomes on theology so we can have a basis for discussion. As it stands, you are clearly out of your depth.
Dunemeister
Well-Known Member
You haven't proven that all beliefs require evidence. You've only given an example of one. Try again.
No, I don't believe you, but not because of the presence or lack of evidence. I don't have any evidence either way. I just don't believe it.
The real question (if you want it to be analogous to the case I'm discussing), is whether that belief is rational for YOU. It is, if it was created by cognitive faculties functioning properly in a suitable cognitive environment. My guess is that, since you look a lot like me, you're actually human. So I suggest a visit to a shrink.
By this point, I'm no longer surprised.
The basic premise of that book is wrong. God is not a "hypothesis" of any sort. So it's not relevant that God is a "failed" hypothesis.
Smoke
Done here.
Do you have any particular reason or basis for not believing it, or is what you believe or don't believe entirely random and inexplicable?
Dunemeister
Well-Known Member
It's not random, I suppose, I just don't believe it. I find it unlikely given what else I think I know. It also helps that he's not seriously advancing this as true. Its hypothetical nature shields it from any need to have a serious reason not to believe it.
lunamoth
Will to love
Hi Balance,
You still seem to be arguing about whether belief in God is reasonable or rational, but that is not what I asked about above. I have already told you that I think you have explained how your beliefs are based upon reason.
I am asking a more fundamental question. How do you know when to trust your reason?
CM has given an answer that equates reason solely with accepting some amount of material evidence. However, it seems to me that having all the evidence in the world will lead to a faulty conclusion if the reason that analyzes it is itself faulty. How do you know when your reason is not faulty.
One answer is to equate what it true or real with what pragmatically works, which is utilitarianism. That seems to be CM's answer. However, that answer while logically sound leaves a lot to be desired. For one thing, you have no rational basis for telling someone else what they aught to do.
Maybe some more of this will be elucidated in my post to CM to follow.
Cheers,
Laurie
lunamoth
Will to love
The humanist ethics are laudable, in fact I am a humanist also. But I see no explanation for any of the above ethics that is rational. What kind of material evidence can you give in support of the idea that it is good to affirm the stated human rights and responsibilities? What kind of material evidence can you give to support anything as right or wrong? Why should anyone care what happens to other humans or the future of the human race? Of course we both have good and reasonable answers to that last question, and we will largely agree...but as far as having material evidence for it? I don't see any.
Is there a meaning to human life outside of what each of us decided for ourselves? If not, then how can you make a rational case for dictating to anyone else what they should do? You just need to hope that many people want to strive for peaceful coexistence and are basically honest in their dealings with each other. Frankly, we can find as much evidence against those objectives as we can for them.
You are saying that you have an aesthetic preference for the humanistic ethics you quote above. But, an aesthetic preference is more more akin to 'faith' than it is to what is 'rational' going by your demand for material evidence.
Wrong. You have not rejected faith. You just deny (or don't see) it acting in your reason. But it is there. And, I am not saying you have faith in God. I accept your words that you do not. But, you do have faith in reason. It's a good place to put your faith, but it is faith.
You may say that you do not need to have faith in reason because it is 'based on facts' and telling what is 'true.' But as I have already pointed out, you actually can't prove that. You can only show that your reason 'works,' and if you claim utilitarianism you are saying that such pragmatism is good enough for you. We shall see.
OK. What is the purely rational and science-based answer to abortion? When, if ever, should it be allowed and why? Remember to please keep your answer based on material evidence. Will every humanist perfectly agree with your answer? Why or why not?
Really? Why? It certainly seems compassionate, but why is it rational? Is there some meaning or sacredness to life that we should preserve it and keep it free from suffering? Or, again, is this just your aesthetic preference? If it is just your preference, why should we listen to you?
Well, I am a religious person but I don't agree with your caricature of religious morality.
This sounds like quite a lot of opinion and conjecture. How do you decide that it is better for a human to not be born because of the suffering it might endure in life? By this logic no one should no one have children because of the potential for suffering. Heck, we know that everyone will die.
I agree that this seems a humane conclusion. But again, what is the rational basis for using degree of suffering as the deciding factor? And, what about the suffering of the mother who has to go through labor and risk death and complications if she goes to full term? And, what about the suffering of both parents, who now have to work harder and make sacrifices to care for the baby? In a purely material, rational decision, shouldn't their work extra sacrifices be weighed into the decision as well?
And, in this world of exploding population growth, why shouldn't we encourage more abortions. Certainly the suffering of one unborn child for an instant is insignificant compared to all the people starving in the world.
I am sure you have rational, evidence-based decisions for all of the above.
Why in the world should sentience be taken into consideration? Is there something special about sentience?
The only problem is that secular humanism is completely based upon faith in the ethics you described. I am glad of this, of course, because I do agree with much of the ethics you described about alleviating human suffering etc.. I really think that someone who really had no faith, and really was a materialistic utilitarian in their approach to life, would be a sociopath and monster.
Last edited:
Vile Atheist
Loud and Obnoxious
Evidence is usually naturalistic. But it can also be logical. Of course, naturalistic evidence is much more valuable than logic alone.
However, we do have evidence - naturalistic evidence - for our morality. Evolution has guided the development of our human society. It has always been in our best interest to act morally. The same "moral" behaviour has also been observed in animals as well indicating that morality is based on genetics as well.
Furthermore, in contrast to Christianity in particular, there is no moral difference between non-Christians and Christians morally, on average. Gallup has done survey after survey and statistically found Christians are just as likely as non-Christians to embrace materialistic, self-centered, and sexual lifestyles. Divorce is actually more common among "born-again Christians". Only 6% of evangelicals tithe. And White evangelicals are the most likely people to object to neighbours of another race. The sexual promiscuity of evangelical youth is only slightly less outrageous than non-evangelical youth.
And think this source is biased? It's from an article in "Christianity Today" which references the relevant Gallup polls. So you can see that Christianity doesn't really have much of an effect - if any - on someone's morals. Christianity doesn't add anything new to what isn't already obvious to us. Morally, at least.
Humanism is the common ground. Religions tend to promote division while humanism emphasizes our common humanity and the ultimate goal of reducing human suffering. This is largely based on the Golden Rule. The Golden Rule makes logical sense. I don't know of any studies done on the Golden Rule, but I can set one up and predict the findings.
Pose a survey with questions that set-up a wrong that has been done against you, people you love/close to you, people you are vaguely acquainted with, and people you do not know. Make it a multiple choice setting up each set of answers with various levels of retaliation: No retaliation (Jesus' turn the other cheek), proportional retaliation (an eye for an eye), or disproportional retaliation (someone looks at your sister, you burn their house down with their family in it).
Set up another survey asking the same questions but this time reversed. Would people do the same wrongs to others if unprovoked or have little justification and furthermore, ask for their rationale. And then contrast the results.
I would predict that an overwhelming majority of people would choose proportional retaliation in the first survey. And I also predict that an overwhelming majority of people would not commit those wrongs to others unprovoked or with little justification. And I wouldn't be surprised to find the Golden Rule is the common rationale. There is an opportunity to compare different cultures and religions, too.
Here you can get hard numbers to show how morality is innate to humans. Once you have shown that, you have to investigate why. What makes us have roughly the same morality? We get to your final question - the core of humanism.
This is what humanism is all about - caring for other humans. But is there any naturalistic evidence for this? There is
! Richard Dawkins has actually put forth some very interesting information on this very subject. He has explained why humans exhibit altruism from an evolutionary/genetic standpoint. Why humans should give a damn about humans. With naturalistic evidence. I recommend his book "The Selfish Gene" because it'll go into much more detail than I will. Basically the notion he puts forth is that genes are the controllers of our bodies (which is true). They dictate how we look, what our disposition is, what diseases we might have or be susceptible to, etc. Morality and ethics and thought in general is the result of brain chemistry dictated by your genetics.
Now the main purpose of genes are to get passed on. They accomplish this by controlling the attributes of their host: the big bags of oily, pinky meat known as you and me. I don't want to give you the misconception that genes are consciously dictating our attributes. They don't. They operate through natural selection. If a particular gene is inhibits the normal functioning, or limits the capacity of its host to survive or reproduce, it will die out along with the host.
So "bad morality genes" would have died out because they wouldn't be able to survive in an evolutionary stable system. (I highly recommend you look up evolutionary stable systems, especially in reference to the game "Prisoner's Dilemma").
Let me give you an example.
We have two types of men and women:
A - Promiscuous man
B - Monogamous man
Y - Promiscuous woman
Z - Monogamous woman
For the sake of argument, let's start off with a high concentration of promiscuous men and monogamous women (A and Z) and low concentrations of B and Y. Keep in mind the aim of all four is both to create offspring and to ensure their survival.
A has the aim of getting as many females as possible. To devote time and energy to one woman is contradictory to the aim of the man. So we have men who are constantly cheating on their mates (Z). The result is we have a huge increase in the number of offspring of A and Z. There are a lot of offspring and only one parent is willing to take care of the offspring.
Z - the monogamous woman - is now going to seek out B - the monogamous man. This is because the monogamous man is compatible with their aims - to have one man to help them raise the offspring. The monogamous woman wastes energy and resources that could be devoted to herself. It's more efficient if the burden is split. Eventually concentration of A will decline and B will increase as a result.
Our population shifts to Z and B (Monogamous men and women). Eventually B becomes so concentrated that enough of Y - promiscuous women - can take advantage of the monogamous men. Now the monogamous men are left wasting energy and resources on raising the offspring. They are in the same situation the monogamous women were in before. They are going to seek monogamous women.
Thus monogamy is part of an evolutionary stable system.
Of course, I probably messed up in my example somewhere, which is why I highly recommend The Selfish Gene! But my ultimate point is to say that there is no naturalistic evidence backing this, is false.
After further exploration into evolutionarily stable systems you'll see just why it's in our best interests to care for each other (from a more scientific standpoint).
Last edited by a moderator:
Vile Atheist
Loud and Obnoxious
Negated in my previous spiel. I do have naturalistic evidence for my morality. And in the few places I don't (I can't actually think of any at the moment), logic supplements. So there is no faith component involved.
However, perhaps this isn't exactly what you meant. I was talking about an overall morality common to all humans. Maybe you meant I don't have naturalistic evidence for why a specific issue is moral or not?
Well of course I can't give you specific evidence without a specific situation. But virtually all situations we're able to gather facts (I can't actually think of any that we can't). Combine these facts with what I stated above, what is evolutionarily stable, and it all fits into place.
I'll tackle this backwards.
Of course not everyone is going to agree 100%. As demonstrated by the mere fact we're debating this, humans will not agree on the specifics of some issues for their own personal reasons built from their knowledge and experience in the real world. I can't really answer that as I don't know every humanist and their experiences. But I would expect them to have similar answers or rationales, even if they are different.
Take this analogy: You are in a chemistry class. I am in a different chemistry class taught by a different teacher at a different school. We're taught exactly the same material. But when we've both completed the course, you may have stronger or weaker knowledge of some concepts than I do based on the way our respective teachers do their job. My teacher may have put more emphasis on stoichiometry, meaning I can do pH calculations really well. Your teacher may have put more emphasis on organic chemistry. So you know are more familiar with esterification reactions and condensation polymerization and Mr. Markovnikov and his wonderful Rule.
We have the same basic knowledge, but because of our different experience, we may approach the same questions differently.
As for the rational and science-based answer to abortion, you may note I defined rational earlier in this thread (if I still remember things correctly at 5am...). Let me see if I can pull this up....
(Looking back, I see how much I missed :|)
This is the definition I normally go off of. You can have rational reasons for believing something, but not necessarily conclusively. That is a point I wish to emphasize.
For example, if a woman wears a name tag that reads "Judy", why wouldn't I believe her? I have a rational reason to, even though I haven't conclusively proven her name is Judy. It's an ordinary claim.
But it would be irrational to believe it if her name tag reads "hhkjshgkjhgkjdshgkjghks" because this is not a name found in any culture. It's an extraordinary claim. It's an unpronouncable name so communication with her or about her may be difficult. It's not a common experience to find people named this way.
But it may be, in fact, that's what her name is. But the fact that it's an extraordinary claim, requiring more evidence than her name tag makes it irrational to accept the name tag alone as sufficient evidence.
Hopefully this distinction is clear by now.
I alluded to facts, earlier, concerning abortion. How we can measure the brain activity at various stages of development. How we can discern when the fetus can feel and is aware of its surroundings.
My personal rational reasons involve those facts combined with my humanist goal of reducing human suffering (which I've already shown is backed by evidence). More suffering occurs when the fetus can feel pain and is aware of its surroundings than when it isn't.
When the fetus is not sentient, only the parents actually suffer from the abortion (emotionally, maybe even socially in some cases). When the fetus is sentient, the parents still suffer and now the fetus suffers as well (physically). So abortion or not, all parties still suffer. Abortion is not only at this point unnecessary, but it's lethal in the sense it kills a sentient entity, versus a non-developed clump of cells with no feeling, thoughts, or emotions.
Those are my rational reasons for adopting the position I do. You may have rational reasons yourself and disagree with me. And I freely accept I may have an unnoticed flaw in my position. However, I based it mostly on evidence and supplement it with logic with the goal of reducing suffering (which is also evidence based).
Vile Atheist
Loud and Obnoxious
It is rational because it is evidence based. What "meaning or sacredness" do whales perceive when they put themselves in harms way to protect another wounded whale? Or in a pack of dolphins (is it a pack :S?) when they push a sick member of their pack up to the surface to get air?
There is a mistaken impression that this perceived "sacredness" is exclusive to humans. And since it can be demonstrated perfectly rationally why our morality and emotions are the result of brain chemistry resulting from genetics resulting from evolution - and all that has lots of evidence behind it, it makes sense to act to relieve suffering in others. Altruism is a part of human nature. Human nature is a result of our genetics.
And no, you probably shouldn't listen to me because there are people much more qualified than I to present this sort of evidence in ways that are more accessible to you. On the contrary, I encourage you to read more on this subject and find out science's answers to this.
There are obvious differences between religions. But with respect to the three great monotheisms, does God not demand worship? At that, exclusive worship? Does God not demand obedience?
If so, then religious followers must act to worship God, to obey God, to please God. That's what their morality must be based on. Any action that doesn't fulfill the above isn't moral. Perhaps this isn't your particular morality.
But if not, I pose the question to you: Are good acts moral because they are good or because they are dictated by God?
If you choose the former, you admit that morality is independent of God. If you choose the latter, you admit it is possible for rape, genocide, and torture to be considered "moral" should God so deem it to be. Yet, you have to struggle with the notion that this is counter-intuitive to your human nature (*cough* determined by your genetics *cough*).
It's largely circumstantial. But the main reasons people get abortions are because (1) for health reasons as in the mother's health is in danger, or (2) the parents are not ready to have children for their own reasons.
We are contrasting abortion before sentience (no pain, no suffering) with bringing in a child into an unstable environment. In the case of (1), you can demonstrably see how the child will be brought into this world without a mother and I speak from experience of loss of a parent at a young age when I say this brings suffering. So we have suffering over no suffering if aborted.
In the case of (2), whatever the reason for not being ready is, it's going to be the case that the child will enter a household that is not financially, emotionally, socially, mentally stable or some combination of them. This is going to cause suffering for obvious reasons and I hope I don't have to spell it out for you in each case. Regardless, we are contrasting no suffering at abortion versus suffering.
Now you say by this logic since everybody suffers to some degree we should all be aborted. I disagree because some suffering is necessary for us to develop. A child struggling through a math problem suffers. But that child overcomes the suffering and understands the problem and can solve it.
The difference is that it is unnecessary suffering when a child is brought into this world when there is no need to be subjected to suffering with no discernable useful end or gain. In the event of a woman being raped and impregnated, she has already suffered enough. But would you not consider that abortion is a viable option for her? Don't you think bringing a child into this world with the knowledge that his father was a rapist a cruel thing to do when we can snuff out the potential development of sentience and it doesn't feel a thing and thus does not suffer?
Even on this issue, we agree the basic premise of killing is wrong, we just disagree over what constitutes killing. My position is supported by evidence, logic, and reasoning, thus it is rational.
To understand my position, you need to understand the difference between necessary and unnecessary suffering.
The labour a mother goes through plus potential complications is necessary suffering in order to achieve the end that a baby is born. The hard work and sacrifices of the parents are necessary suffering to achieve the end of raising a child. Bringing a child into this world who will eventually have the knowledge his father was a rapist and being born into a probably unstable (in some way) home is unnecessary suffering because it achieves no discernable useful end.
Yes, as a matter of fact.
Have you ever scratched your nose?
You may be wondering what I'm smoking right now. But I'll explain. When you scratch your nose, you kill perhaps thousands of LIVE skin cells. You are destroying life. Yet, you have no qualms about it.
Would you have qualms with killing a six year old child?
I'd wager you would have very many qualms with that. Now what is the difference between a six year old child and skin cells? Both are alive. But only the six year old child is sentient. Get the distinction? Sentient life can perceive suffering.
I'm not quite sure what precisely you mean by "materialistic utilitarian". If you are in reference to my moral code, which I've demonstrated is based off of evidence (though not necessarily conclusive) and logic, you would agree, I'm sure, I'm no sociopath or monster from the morals I described above.
But if you mean approaching morality from a purely Darwinian standpoint, you are correct. A moral code based on survival of the fittest would lead to policies of eugenics, etc.
The difference between my personal moral code and, say, policies like eugenics, is that eugenics - while rationally supported by evolution - still causes immense suffering. And it's for that simple matter why I'm not advocating eugenics.
I still do not perceive "faith" in my morals.
Last edited by a moderator:
Vile Atheist
Loud and Obnoxious
Dunemeister! Friend!
My sincerest apologies, but my schedule has been lately busy. I've only managed to respond to lunamoth between 5 and 6am (local). But I do promise you I'll get to your responses probably some time tomorrow. Well...today, actually.
This should give you the chance to ice your fingers in response to my endless walls of text. I know lol....I'm long-winded. So I'm not actually ignoring you lol.
My sincerest apologies, but my schedule has been lately busy. I've only managed to respond to lunamoth between 5 and 6am (local). But I do promise you I'll get to your responses probably some time tomorrow. Well...today, actually.
This should give you the chance to ice your fingers in response to my endless walls of text
. I know lol....I'm long-winded. So I'm not actually ignoring you lol.
OmarKhayyam
Well-Known Member
"I really think that someone who really had no faith, and really was a materialistic utilitarian in their approach to life, would be a sociopath and monster."
If you think about the implications of that statement they are really disgusting. That idea says we are devoid of moral sensibilities, BOTH incapable and unwilling to control our behavior, have no impulse beyond self satisfaction and indeed are not as moral as a pack of wolves.
Why would anyone holding such a view of themselves and their fellows bother to remain alive? The shame alone in being a member of so worthless and degenerate a species would justify mass extinction.
Religious faith has great deal to answer for. Its bloody and hateful history alone is burden enough. But here is added a view of humanity that denies the possibility - nay even the desirably of progress w/o its corrupting influence.
A more loathsome position can scarcely be imagined.:cover:
If you think about the implications of that statement they are really disgusting. That idea says we are devoid of moral sensibilities, BOTH incapable and unwilling to control our behavior, have no impulse beyond self satisfaction and indeed are not as moral as a pack of wolves.
Why would anyone holding such a view of themselves and their fellows bother to remain alive? The shame alone in being a member of so worthless and degenerate a species would justify mass extinction.
Religious faith has great deal to answer for. Its bloody and hateful history alone is burden enough. But here is added a view of humanity that denies the possibility - nay even the desirably of progress w/o its corrupting influence.
A more loathsome position can scarcely be imagined.:cover:
Vile Atheist
Loud and Obnoxious
Omar brings up a very good point that I was well-aware of while responding to lunamoth, but decided to wait for her answer to the Euthyphro dilemma in order to bring that up.
Her answer will be very interesting, I anticipate.
Her answer will be very interesting, I anticipate.
Smoke
Done here.
Wow. Lucky for me I'm not a Utilitarian, I guess. But I think this is way over the top.
lunamoth
Will to love
Evidence is usually naturalistic. But it can also be logical. Of course, naturalistic evidence is much more valuable than logic alone.
However, we do have evidence - naturalistic evidence - for our morality. Evolution has guided the development of our human society. It has always been in our best interest to act morally. The same "moral" behaviour has also been observed in animals as well indicating that morality is based on genetics as well.
Furthermore, in contrast to Christianity in particular, there is no moral difference between non-Christians and Christians morally, on average. Gallup has done survey after survey and statistically found Christians are just as likely as non-Christians to embrace materialistic, self-centered, and sexual lifestyles. Divorce is actually more common among "born-again Christians". Only 6% of evangelicals tithe. And White evangelicals are the most likely people to object to neighbours of another race. The sexual promiscuity of evangelical youth is only slightly less outrageous than non-evangelical youth.
And think this source is biased? It's from an article in "Christianity Today" which references the relevant Gallup polls. So you can see that Christianity doesn't really have much of an effect - if any - on someone's morals. Christianity doesn't add anything new to what isn't already obvious to us. Morally, at least.
Humanism is the common ground. Religions tend to promote division while humanism emphasizes our common humanity and the ultimate goal of reducing human suffering. This is largely based on the Golden Rule. The Golden Rule makes logical sense. I don't know of any studies done on the Golden Rule, but I can set one up and predict the findings.
Pose a survey with questions that set-up a wrong that has been done against you, people you love/close to you, people you are vaguely acquainted with, and people you do not know. Make it a multiple choice setting up each set of answers with various levels of retaliation: No retaliation (Jesus' turn the other cheek), proportional retaliation (an eye for an eye), or disproportional retaliation (someone looks at your sister, you burn their house down with their family in it).
Set up another survey asking the same questions but this time reversed. Would people do the same wrongs to others if unprovoked or have little justification and furthermore, ask for their rationale. And then contrast the results.
I would predict that an overwhelming majority of people would choose proportional retaliation in the first survey. And I also predict that an overwhelming majority of people would not commit those wrongs to others unprovoked or with little justification. And I wouldn't be surprised to find the Golden Rule is the common rationale. There is an opportunity to compare different cultures and religions, too.
Here you can get hard numbers to show how morality is innate to humans. Once you have shown that, you have to investigate why. What makes us have roughly the same morality? We get to your final question - the core of humanism.
This is what humanism is all about - caring for other humans. But is there any naturalistic evidence for this? There is
Basically the notion he puts forth is that genes are the controllers of our bodies (which is true). They dictate how we look, what our disposition is, what diseases we might have or be susceptible to, etc. Morality and ethics and thought in general is the result of brain chemistry dictated by your genetics.
Now the main purpose of genes are to get passed on. They accomplish this by controlling the attributes of their host: the big bags of oily, pinky meat known as you and me. I don't want to give you the misconception that genes are consciously dictating our attributes. They don't. They operate through natural selection. If a particular gene is inhibits the normal functioning, or limits the capacity of its host to survive or reproduce, it will die out along with the host.
So "bad morality genes" would have died out because they wouldn't be able to survive in an evolutionary stable system. (I highly recommend you look up evolutionary stable systems, especially in reference to the game "Prisoner's Dilemma").
Let me give you an example.
We have two types of men and women:
A - Promiscuous man
B - Monogamous man
Y - Promiscuous woman
Z - Monogamous woman
For the sake of argument, let's start off with a high concentration of promiscuous men and monogamous women (A and Z) and low concentrations of B and Y. Keep in mind the aim of all four is both to create offspring and to ensure their survival.
A has the aim of getting as many females as possible. To devote time and energy to one woman is contradictory to the aim of the man. So we have men who are constantly cheating on their mates (Z). The result is we have a huge increase in the number of offspring of A and Z. There are a lot of offspring and only one parent is willing to take care of the offspring.
Z - the monogamous woman - is now going to seek out B - the monogamous man. This is because the monogamous man is compatible with their aims - to have one man to help them raise the offspring. The monogamous woman wastes energy and resources that could be devoted to herself. It's more efficient if the burden is split. Eventually concentration of A will decline and B will increase as a result.
Our population shifts to Z and B (Monogamous men and women). Eventually B becomes so concentrated that enough of Y - promiscuous women - can take advantage of the monogamous men. Now the monogamous men are left wasting energy and resources on raising the offspring. They are in the same situation the monogamous women were in before. They are going to seek monogamous women.
Thus monogamy is part of an evolutionary stable system.
Of course, I probably messed up in my example somewhere, which is why I highly recommend The Selfish Gene! But my ultimate point is to say that there is no naturalistic evidence backing this, is false.
After further exploration into evolutionarily stable systems you'll see just why it's in our best interests to care for each other (from a more scientific standpoint).
Hi CM,
Wow, that's a lot! I don't have any issue with any of the above. I agree that morality is innate and has been shaped by evolution. I'm pretty familiar with Richard Dawkins and the idea of the selfish gene. I've also read quite a lot about 'evolutionary psychology,' and the hypotheses about the forces that have caused much of our behaviors. Interesting stuff!
Anyway, none of this addresses the heart of the issue of the atheist's faith, or esp. the humanist's faith. It does not matter that we know all the details of fetal development...it's all life or potential life. You make a cut-off at 'sentient,' but my point is that if there is no inherent meaning to life, and no greater purpose to the development of sentience, then choosing sentience for an OK point for abortion is arbitrary. You just need to get enough people to agree that sentient life is somehow special, even though there is no natural explanation for 'specialness' of sentience.
Same thing with suffering. So what if people suffer in the greater scheme of things? You could argue that maybe you won't suffer as much if others agree that human suffering is bad, and that there are some altruistic behaviors related to nurturing our young that influence us to be compassionate and ease suffering. OK, but now that you rationally know these things, you can choose to ignore that, can't you? Why must you be tied to your putative genetic drives? Again, you are just trying to persuade others that humanism is 'good,' but, nothing is good unless there is a universal meaning to our choices. There is only 'good for me' or 'good for my group' and 'what I think is good for you (because ultimately it is good for me).'
And, all of that is fine. But, it is an expression of faith. You can't get to what is 'true' and what is 'good' by material evidence alone. Even choosing 'what is best for my species' shows that you are making an arbitrary choice: what makes our species so special? You only get to these choices through an underlying faith. And, I am not referring to a particular faith in God or thinking of yourself as a theist or religionist or whatever.
It is simply your faith that there is something that is 'good.'
Really, using the scientific method, can you show that anything is 'good' in the moral sense?