Theism Vs Atheism

[JoJo]

Lord,

I bring you this person by the nickname Silver Bullet. I don't know his purpose for being here, for all of his questions and for his arguments, but I do know that you know all. You know his heart and you know his future. Lord, I ask, in the name of your Son, Jesus, our Messiah, that you will reveal yourself to SB so that he may know and experience this faith of which we speak. Your Word says that you want no man to be lost, and SB is lost, without knowledge, wandering aimlessly in the dark under the guise of a so-called man-made "freedom." Help him to see that a love relationship with you is not the religious institution that many believe. Help him to see YOU. Lord, I stand before you with SB in my heart and I ask, Lord, that you will give him the precious sight that leads to the true freedom of knowing you. In Jesus' name, Amen. Amen, So Be It.

 

[Veritas]

That is why we must put less weight on historical claims, such as those made in the first century Roman empire.

True, but we still acknowledge many occurrences that happened during, and before, the first century in the Roman empire (and elsewhere) to be valid

More on this particular topic (of whether objective moral truths require a cosmic moral lawgiver) in this terrific debate, including one of the foremost Christian thinkers of our time, WIlliam Lane Craig:

http://www.veritas.org/media/talks/693

I watched the video and caught an error in thinking right away on the part of Dr. Shelly Kagan. He appeals to "common sense"; however, that is the very thing in question. He proposes that if something "hurts/harms" then it must be morally bad. The problem is that you must not only define "what hurts", but you must also determine why things that "hurt/harm" are even wrong in the first place. He is ignoring fundamental principles.

That water is a liquid at standard temperature and pressure can be considered a law of science. Nothing about that statement implies that there is a lawmaker who assures that that is always true, or that this law "has to come from somewhere". This "law" is just a human observation of nature.

....There is nothing about this concept or what I have written that addresses the logical fallacy of implying that the "laws" of science need a lawmaker.

I disagree this is a logical fallacy. There are more layers of thought here than just a human observation of nature.
That particular law, which I agree is a human observation of nature, is based upon a principle of exclusion. We have made the assumption that a particular "law of science" holds true as evidenced by measurements taken and have excluded other possibilities. Not only have we used a principle (it's own existence of which can be called into question) we've also made an inference and have adhered to the law of noncontradiction. The existence of any "law of science" is dependant upon deeper, fundamental laws - all of which imply a lawmaker (or imply that the law "has to come from somewhere"). They do because it is the nature of the validity of thought itself.

The arrogance is not in bowing down before God (and I never said it was - you are misconstruing my posts), but in making claims about the universe, about virgin birth, about the benevolence of God, about someone else's eternal future - claims that one cannot possibly know to be true. These claims themselves are elitist (follow my omnipotent God and be part of my special club because we know the real God and you will get eternal life, follow that false God and you will be in an inferior club and get eternal hell).

The claims are elitist and exclusivistic; however, just because something is elitist doesn't mean it's motivated by arrogance. No one is forcing you to believe these claims; and if they are, that is very wrong.

...These comments were directed at someone who claimed to know that the universe was created by his particular eternal God. They are meant to address the concept that there are any number of possible explanations, including non-supernatural ones and the concept that the universe itself may be eternal. I'm advocating having an open mind. If you search my posts here, that is what I have consistently been advocating.
....When one makes the claim that he knows that morality can only come from the God that he worships, arrogance is indeed on display. This is a claim that one cannot possibly know to be true, and which demeans others who derive their morality from other means.

Demeaning a particular "morality" is sometimes for the higher good. For example, I think we can both agree it is good to demean the morality that considers all other races than themselves (whatever that may be) undeserving of life.

When you come right down to it, one cannot know anything to be true, including the existence of oneself. On deep intrinsic levels of thought, all has to be taken on faith. So, we really are all arrogant in the proposition you present regardless of where the morality is thought to be derived.

 

[Silver Bullet]

The scientific process is a tool. When used properly it is very effective; however, it is only a subset of our "Reason". Scientific inquiry is limited when occurrences or substances cannot be measured or cannot be repeated. Historical methods of inquiry, for example, rely partly on scientific evidence. However, much of what we consider to be valid is due to insight and acumen of the individual that is not quantifiable in any scientific terms.

That is why we must put less weight on historical claims, such as those made in the first century Roman empire.

True, but we still acknowledge many occurrences that happened during, and before, the first century in the Roman empire (and elsewhere) to be valid

It is a basic fact of human discourse that one either has good reasons for what one believes, or one does not. While you have pointed out the difference in the type of evidence that may be available, science and history are both evidence based, and about having good reasons.

However you put it Veritas, you are suggesting that the claims of the Gospels ought to be held in less esteem than the claims of modern science. I agree. Nothing about our 21st century understanding of human reproduction indicates the remotest possibility of parthenogenesis. Virtually nothing about the Gospels suggests that we should discard that scientific understanding and believe in Jesus' virgin birth. It's simple: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Historical evidence recorded by biased observers 2000 or more years ago and edited by biased editors over time just can't cut it.

I watched the video and caught an error in thinking right away on the part of Dr. Shelly Kagan. He appeals to "common sense"; however, that is the very thing in question. He proposes that if something "hurts/harms" then it must be morally bad. The problem is that you must not only define "what hurts", but you must also determine why things that "hurt/harm" are even wrong in the first place. He is ignoring fundamental principles.

Please expand on this Veritas, especially the part about the need to establish why "things that hurt/harm are wrong in the first place." I seems fairly clear to me that humans can almost universally agree that "things that hurt/harm are wrong". Why isn't that enough?

The arrogance is not in bowing down before God (and I never said it was - you are misconstruing my posts), but in making claims about the universe, about virgin birth, about the benevolence of God, about someone else's eternal future - claims that one cannot possibly know to be true. These claims themselves are elitist (follow my omnipotent God and be part of my special club because we know the real God and you will get eternal life, follow that false God and you will be in an inferior club and get eternal hell).

The claims are elitist and exclusivistic; however, just because something is elitist doesn't mean it's motivated by arrogance. No one is forcing you to believe these claims; and if they are, that is very wrong.

Again, you are mixing up ideas from other posts. I was arguing that "shad" in his thread entitled "Elitism" was a hypocrite because his Christian doctrine is itself elitist (which you and I seem to agree on), just as the denominations he was identifying as elitist are. That was one thought, and the main thrust of those posts.

Arrogance: an attitude of superiority manifested in an overbearing manner or presumptuous claims or assumptions.

The issue of arrogance came up in the thread entitled "Elitism" because I felt that I had to point out to shad that Christian doctrine is indeed elitist, as when it teaches that only those who follow Christian doctrine will attain a pleasant eternal life, and that all others get eternal suffering. It just happens that that very concept is overbearing and incredibly presumptuous, so it is also arrogant. I never suggested that elitism and arrogance in general are necessarily related, so you had no need to make the comments that you made. Arrogance came up in this thread as it related to the idea that Jesus is the only way to true morality. It doesn't matter that nobody is forcing me to believe Christian dogma. It is arrogant. Just look back at the post(s) I was responding to, which are typical.

...These comments were directed at someone who claimed to know that the universe was created by his particular eternal God. They are meant to address the concept that there are any number of possible explanations, including non-supernatural ones and the concept that the universe itself may be eternal. I'm advocating having an open mind. If you search my posts here, that is what I have consistently been advocating.
....When one makes the claim that he knows that morality can only come from the God that he worships, arrogance is indeed on display. This is a claim that one cannot possibly know to be true, and which demeans others who derive their morality from other means.

Demeaning a particular "morality" is sometimes for the higher good. For example, I think we can both agree it is good to demean the morality that considers all other races than themselves (whatever that may be) undeserving of life.

Demean: to lower in character, status, or reputation

Once again, your comments are irrelevant. I was pointing out that the arrogant claim that morality can only come from a particular God demeans other people who derive their morality from other means. I was not commenting on moral content per se, but on the means of deriving morality. The suggestion that Jesus is the only way to true morality necessarily "lowers the status or reputation" of those who derive their morality from other means, without considering what those means or the ultimate moral content may be.

I will point out 2 things though:

1) demeaning a particular morality may only be a good thing when the particular morality in question is one that diminishes the well-being or increases the suffering of others, as your example does. The consideration of how the particular morality in question impacts others is what is primary.

2) the reason we (and Shelly Kagan as well I am sure) can agree that demeaning the particular morality you described is good Veritas, is because we are fully aware of the harm that such a morality would cause others, without a need to "define harm" or determine why "harm is wrong".

SB

 

[Silver Bullet]

That water is a liquid at standard temperature and pressure can be considered a law of science. Nothing about that statement implies that there is a lawmaker who assures that that is always true, or that this law "has to come from somewhere". This "law" is just a human observation of nature.

....There is nothing about this concept or what I have written that addresses the logical fallacy of implying that the "laws" of science need a lawmaker.

I disagree this is a logical fallacy. There are more layers of thought here than just a human observation of nature.
That particular law, which I agree is a human observation of nature, is based upon a principle of exclusion. We have made the assumption that a particular "law of science" holds true as evidenced by measurements taken and have excluded other possibilities. Not only have we used a principle (it's own existence of which can be called into question) we've also made an inference and have adhered to the law of noncontradiction. The existence of any "law of science" is dependant upon deeper, fundamental laws - all of which imply a lawmaker (or imply that the law "has to come from somewhere"). They do because it is the nature of the validity of thought itself.

I just don't understand what you're saying here Veritas. Are you saying that a valid thought itself implies a "lawmaker"? Can you explain it in plain language?

Does the Law of Non-Contradiction require a cosmic philosophy lawmaker?

Note: From Wikipedia:
"Physical Law: A physical law or scientific law is a scientific generalization based on empirical observations of physical behavior (i.e. the law of nature [1]). Laws of nature are observable. Scientific laws are empirical, describing the observable laws. Empirical laws are typically conclusions based on repeated scientific experiments and simple observations, over many years, and which have become accepted universally within the scientific community.
Laws of nature are distinct from religious and civil law, and should not be confused with the concept of natural law. Nor should 'physical law' be confused with 'law of physics' - the term 'physical law' usually covers laws in other sciences (e.g. biology) as well."

SB

 

[Vic C.]

Arrogance: an attitude of superiority manifested in an overbearing manner or presumptuous claims or assumptions.

Demean: to lower in character, status, or reputation.

Thank you for those definitions; now the reader can better decide who is being arrogant and demeaning in this and other topics.

 

[JoJo]

The difference between making solid claims based on faith and arrogance is the position of self. It is more arrogant to rely on the mind's intellectual abilities to reason everything out than it is to rely by faith on a God who is too wondrous to fully analyze.

 

[Silver Bullet]

The difference between making solid claims based on faith and arrogance is the position of self. It is more arrogant to rely on the mind's intellectual abilities to reason everything out than it is to rely by faith on a God who is too wondrous to fully analyze.

Solid claims cannot possibly be made "on faith". When solid claims are made on faith, they are, by definition, arrogant (because they are presumptious). In determining whether one is arrogant, the position that is relevant is the position of the person making the claims in relation to all other people.

As you have pointed out before JoJo, you have the prerogative to believe whatever you want to believe. You are certainly free to believe that Jesus answers your prayers and will provide you and other people who believe the right things in the right way with eternal bliss, just as Mormons are free to believe that their special underwear will protect them from bullets. But your claims are arrogant claims because they are presumptious and they imply that what others believe (which is their prerogative, as you have pointed out) is inferior (eg. they are blind, they believe in a false god, their beliefs will land them in hell). When you have no better reasons for believing what you believe than others have for believing what they believe, yet you still claim that the others will spend eternity in hell for their beliefs, your claims are overbearing. Presumptious, attitude of superiority, and overbearing: that's arrogance, by definition.

You and VicC claim that you are really humble before God, and not arrogant because of that humility before God. But God is part of your belief, and given how you define God, it is obvious that you must be humble before him. All that seems to matter to you is how you stand in relation to your beliefs. What really matters is how you stand in relation to all other people. That is what defines your position as arrogant.

The instant you have good reasons for believing what you believe, the arrogance will disappear, because your claims will no longer be presumptious. Good reasons are contagious, and others will see that your claims are superior for good reason(s), so they will adopt them. They will no longer seem overbearing.

As I wrote before: it is a basic fact of human discourse that one either has good reasons for believing what she believes, or she doesn't.

SB

 

[Veritas]

It is a basic fact of human discourse that one either has good reasons for what one believes, or one does not. While you have pointed out the difference in the type of evidence that may be available, science and history are both evidence based, and about having good reasons.

However you put it Veritas, you are suggesting that the claims of the Gospels ought to be held in less esteem than the claims of modern science. I agree. Nothing about our 21st century understanding of human reproduction indicates the remotest possibility of parthenogenesis. Virtually nothing about the Gospels suggests that we should discard that scientific understanding and believe in Jesus' virgin birth. It's simple: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Historical evidence recorded by biased observers 2000 or more years ago and edited by biased editors over time just can't cut it.

It's not possible to have both. If you had extraordinary evidence, like I assume you are looking for (ie. repeatable, peer reviewed evidence), it will no longer be an extraordinary claim. It would be ordinary. So, yes, there has to be room made in the mind for accepting the possiblity of the miraculous.

That said, I think there is extraodinary evidence for the veracity of the Bible in terms of a historical investigation. I disagree with the claim that accounts have been edited over time. And I believe this to be a popular misconception of our day. If, by editing, you mean adding a space or using a different spelling, I would agree with you. But if, by editing, you mean entire ideas have been changed, I flaty disagree.

When the gospels (for example) are compared to other historical accounts or literature, of which we consider to be accurate or largely unchanged, we find that the evidence for the gospels far outweighs other documents. Herodutus, whom we consider to be the father of history, wrote The Histories of Herodutus in the 400s BC; the earliest copies we have for those documents are from 900 AD; That is a 1300 year time gap between the orginal and what we have. There are 8 copies. Livy wrote the History of Rome at the time of Christ; we have 1 partial copy from that and it dates to 300 AD. Josephus wrote The Jewish War in the first century AD, we have 9 copies of that dating from 900 AD, leaving an 800 year time gap from when it was written. Pliny the Elder wrote the Natural History in first century AD; we have 7 copies of that from 850 AD. Tacitus wrote the Annals of Imperial of Rome in the first century AD; we have 20 copies of that from 1100 AD.

Now compare this to the New Testament. It was written from 50 - 100 AD. The earliest fragments we have are from 114 AD. At most there is 50 year time gap between original and copy. We have 5664 copies. That is extraordinary evidence.

There are also volumes of archeological evidence which supports the Bible. We forget that kingdoms, of whose existence we now take for granted, such as the Assyrians and the Babylonians, or even their towns, were once thought to be imaginary by critics of the past. Archeology has validated all of this.

Veritas wrote:
I watched the video and caught an error in thinking right away on the part of Dr. Shelly Kagan. He appeals to "common sense"; however, that is the very thing in question. He proposes that if something "hurts/harms" then it must be morally bad. The problem is that you must not only define "what hurts", but you must also determine why things that "hurt/harm" are even wrong in the first place. He is ignoring fundamental principles.

Please expand on this Veritas, especially the part about the need to establish why "things that hurt/harm are wrong in the first place." I seems fairly clear to me that humans can almost universally agree that "things that hurt/harm are wrong". Why isn't that enough?

Can we universally agree? A dispassionate look at nature won't help us. Many species, even mammalian and other primates, practice behaviour that would be considered very hurtful within their own species. By our standards what they do would be considered murder, rape, and cannibalism. A question can be asked, and has been asked, whether it is good for them to do this by some overarching natural benefit. It's a reasonable question, but does not help us for deriving a morality naturalisticaly. So assuming agreement exists regarding the derivation of morality devoid of God is inconsistent. That definition is not enough. It's practical for now because we mostly agree as a result of the historical religious undertones still existent in our culture today. And I believe it also exists as a part of God's presence here with all of us, albeit partial with some.

Veritas wrote:
The claims are elitist and exclusivistic; however, just because something is elitist doesn't mean it's motivated by arrogance. No one is forcing you to believe these claims; and if they are, that is very wrong.

Again, you are mixing up ideas from other posts. I was arguing that "shad" in his thread entitled "Elitism" was a hypocrite because his Christian doctrine is itself elitist (which you and I seem to agree on), just as the denominations he was identifying as elitist are. That was one thought, and the main thrust of those posts.

Arrogance: an attitude of superiority manifested in an overbearing manner or presumptuous claims or assumptions.

The issue of arrogance came up in the thread entitled "Elitism" because I felt that I had to point out to shad that Christian doctrine is indeed elitist, as when it teaches that only those who follow Christian doctrine will attain a pleasant eternal life, and that all others get eternal suffering. It just happens that that very concept is overbearing and incredibly presumptuous, so it is also arrogant.

It would be presumptuous and arrogant of me to determine that you are destined for hell. But I don't know that and I don't presume that. I believe that God knows, and I don't think this is presumptuous of God because of the fact he does "know".

I never suggested that elitism and arrogance in general are necessarily related, so you had no need to make the comments that you made. Arrogance came up in this thread as it related to the idea that Jesus is the only way to true morality. It doesn't matter that nobody is forcing me to believe Christian dogma. It is arrogant. Just look back at the post(s) I was responding to, which are typical.

I see. So, do you think it is arrogant of me to simply believe Jesus is the only way? Or, arrogant of me to follow His morality ie "Love God. Love others as yourself"? Or both?

I could understand you thinking that Jesus is arrogant - he would be if he isn't God. However, if he is God, he's just the opposite.

Veritas wrote:
Demeaning a particular "morality" is sometimes for the higher good. For example, I think we can both agree it is good to demean the morality that considers all other races than themselves (whatever that may be) undeserving of life.

Demean: to lower in character, status, or reputation

Once again, your comments are irrelevant. I was pointing out that the arrogant claim that morality can only come from a particular God demeans other people who derive their morality from other means. I was not commenting on moral content per se, but on the means of deriving morality. The suggestion that Jesus is the only way to true morality necessarily "lowers the status or reputation" of those who derive their morality from other means, without considering what those means or the ultimate moral content may be.

I think we Christians consider both the means and the ultimate moral content. I don't think some of the other means of deriving a morality is very robust intellectually speaking for reasons I've been trying to explain. And I do disagree with the some ultimate moral content derived. I'm sure you disagree with me. I don't think you are demeaning me, just disagreeing with me.

I will point out 2 things though:

1) demeaning a particular morality may only be a good thing when the particular morality in question is one that diminishes the well-being or increases the suffering of others, as your example does. The consideration of how the particular morality in question impacts others is what is primary.

2) the reason we (and Shelly Kagan as well I am sure) can agree that demeaning the particular morality you described is good Veritas, is because we are fully aware of the harm that such a morality would cause others, without a need to "define harm" or determine why "harm is wrong".

Ok, but as I said, it's not comprehensive.

 

[Silver Bullet]

It's not possible to have both. If you had extraordinary evidence, like I assume you are looking for (ie. repeatable, peer reviewed evidence), it will no longer be an extraordinary claim. It would be ordinary. So, yes, there has to be room made in the mind for accepting the possiblity of the miraculous.

No. There is extraordinary evidence for the theory of evolution, yet nothing about that evidence makes the theory of evolution ordinary. The theory of evolution is extraordinary. Your comments do not provided any reason to believe in anything "miraculous". There is only wishful thinking, or what you probably call "faith".

That said, I think there is extraordinary evidence for the veracity of the Bible in terms of a historical investigation. . . the New Testament . . . was written from 50 - 100 AD. The earliest fragments we have are from 114 AD. At most there is 50 year time gap between original and copy. We have 5664 copies. That is extraordinary evidence.

This is evidence that the authors may have believed that certain events occured 50-100 years prior to the writing, but not that what they believed is actually true. That is wishful thinking. There are probably millions of people alive in India and around the world today who believe that Sathya Sai Baba was born of a virgin and who continues to perform miracles today on a regular basis. There is plenty of evidence that this is the case, but no good evidence that the claims are true or that what these people believe is real is actually real. The same goes for miracles that apparently occur in the modern day in Christian settings in the West. All this "evidence" comes from biased observers who show a striking desire to believe in the claims being made as well as a striking unwillingness to search for alternate natural explanations. Thes biases can only have been much more powerful in the first century Roman Empire.

Can we universally agree? A dispassionate look at nature won't help us.

Who cares? This is irrelevant. The animals you refer to do not have the intellectual capabilities that we have (or if they do, they are not as developed) - capabilities that allow us to ponder our actions, consider their consequences, empathize with other creatures, reason etc. What animals do seems irrelevant as it relates to our morality.

So assuming agreement exists regarding the derivation of morality devoid of God is inconsistent.

I don't understand that sentence.

It would be presumptuous and arrogant of me to determine that you are destined for hell. But I don't know that and I don't presume that. I believe that God knows, and I don't think this is presumptuous of God because of the fact he does "know".

Do you proofread what you submit? It is presumptious of you to say that your God knows my fate. It is not a fact that a God exists, let alone that your God exists and knows anything about my fate.

do you think it is arrogant of me to simply believe Jesus is the only way? Or, arrogant of me to follow His morality ie "Love God. Love others as yourself"? Or both?

It is arrogant to claim that you know that Jesus is the only way to eternal life and that Jesus' morality is the only true morality. You can't possibly know that. Those claims are presumptious, overbearing, and carry an air of superiority in that other claims about the after-life and morality are necessarily inferior since yours are the only real ones. A disclaimer, such as, "I could well be wrong, and Allah or Zeus might be the real God, or there may be no God at all" would work well.

I don't think some of the other means of deriving a morality is very robust intellectually speaking for reasons I've been trying to explain.

You are going to have to do a better job of explaining why your means of deriving morality are more "intellectually robust than others", particularly the considerations that I have described as the primary moral considerations. What exactly are your means of deriving morality? (You personally interpret scripture that you believe is divine?) I have not seen one reasonable argument. Only appeals to "faith" that Jesus is the one true way to morality.

I will point out 2 things though:

1) demeaning a particular morality may only be a good thing when the particular morality in question is one that diminishes the well-being or increases the suffering of others, as your example does. The consideration of how the particular morality in question impacts others is what is primary.

2) the reason we (and Shelly Kagan as well I am sure) can agree that demeaning the particular morality you described is good Veritas, is because we are fully aware of the harm that such a morality would cause others, without a need to "define harm" or determine why "harm is wrong".

Ok, but as I said, it's not comprehensive.

Again, I don't think you've adequately explained this. What do you mean by comprehensive? Certainly you can't mean that the sketch of morality as being about helping/harming and well-being/suffering will immediately provide a comprehensive moral code. I never made such a claim. These considerations are the primary considerations: that's the claim.

SB

 

[Veritas]

No. There is extraordinary evidence for the theory of evolution, yet nothing about that evidence makes the theory of evolution ordinary. The theory of evolution is extraordinary. Your comments do not provided any reason to believe in anything "miraculous". There is only wishful thinking, or what you probably call "faith".

I think our disagreement here is simply coming down to a definition of terms in what extraordinary is.

Veritas wrote:
That said, I think there is extraordinary evidence for the veracity of the Bible in terms of a historical investigation. . . the New Testament . . . was written from 50 - 100 AD. The earliest fragments we have are from 114 AD. At most there is 50 year time gap between original and copy. We have 5664 copies. That is extraordinary evidence.

This is evidence that the authors may have believed that certain events occured 50-100 years prior to the writing, but not that what they believed is actually true. That is wishful thinking. There are probably millions of people alive in India and around the world today who believe that Sathya Sai Baba was born of a virgin and who continues to perform miracles today on a regular basis. There is plenty of evidence that this is the case, but no good evidence that the claims are true or that what these people believe is real is actually real. The same goes for miracles that apparently occur in the modern day in Christian settings in the West. All this "evidence" comes from biased observers who show a striking desire to believe in the claims being made as well as a striking unwillingness to search for alternate natural explanations. Thes biases can only have been much more powerful in the first century Roman Empire.

For many supposed miracles, yes, I think there can be natural explanations (as a side note, I think that some occurrences, considered to be natural, are actually miracles). However, regardless of that, there is not really a natural explanation for the resurrection, which is the hingepoint of Christianity. This sets it apart.

Veritas wrote:
Can we universally agree? A dispassionate look at nature won't help us.

Who cares? This is irrelevant. The animals you refer to do not have the intellectual capabilities that we have (or if they do, they are not as developed) - capabilities that allow us to ponder our actions, consider their consequences, empathize with other creatures, reason etc. What animals do seems irrelevant as it relates to our morality.

I don't think it's irrelevent when deriving a morality. It is a point that is being overlooked and it is especially relevant when those doing the "overlooking" consider humankind nothing more than an advanced animal. We can do any one of those things: ponder, consider consequences, reason, empathize - and yet it will not nessecarily lead to a good morality. Even by the standard used by Kagan.

Veritas wrote:
So assuming agreement exists regarding the derivation of morality devoid of God is inconsistent.

I don't understand that sentence.

....I seems fairly clear to me that humans can almost universally agree that "things that hurt/harm are wrong". Why isn't that enough?....

Assuming humans can almost universally agree that "things which hurt/harm are wrong", using nothing but a morality devoid of God, is inconsistent.

It is inconsistent in that "faith" is rejected as a viable starting point, yet "faith" is actually being used as a starting point. The starting point for any derivation of morality is based on just that, - "faith".

Veritas wrote:
It would be presumptuous and arrogant of me to determine that you are destined for hell. But I don't know that and I don't presume that. I believe that God knows, and I don't think this is presumptuous of God because of the fact he does "know".

Do you proofread what you submit? It is presumptious of you to say that your God knows my fate. It is not a fact that a God exists, let alone that your God exists and knows anything about my fate.

I was under the impression that presuming an idea has a different connotation to it than being presumptious and arrogant about an idea.

Veritas wrote:
do you think it is arrogant of me to simply believe Jesus is the only way? Or, arrogant of me to follow His morality ie "Love God. Love others as yourself"? Or both?

It is arrogant to claim that you know that Jesus is the only way to eternal life and that Jesus' morality is the only true morality. You can't possibly know that. Those claims are presumptious, overbearing, and carry an air of superiority in that other claims about the after-life and morality are necessarily inferior since yours are the only real ones. A disclaimer, such as, "I could well be wrong, and Allah or Zeus might be the real God, or there may be no God at all" would work well.

Ah, I see. First I should back up a bit and say that I believe that there is such a thing as "truth". I think, here, you and I can agree. This is basic, but I think it's an important starting point. We both believe that if A is true, then B is false, unless A=B. This is the line of reasoning I use with my belief that Jesus is the only way. If what Jesus is saying is true, then what the other religions say must be false, because Jesus≠Other religions. Jesus even said he was the only way. Now, I do admit I could be all wrong. I don't see this as diminishing my faith in any way, but it is a reason faith is necessary. When one takes a completely honest view there is uncertainty in everything. Pascal reflects this state quite honestly:

If I saw no signs of a divinity, I would fix myself in denial. If I saw everywhere the marks of a Creator, I would repose peacefully in faith. But seeing too much to deny Him, and too little to assure me, I am in a pitiful state, and I would wish a hundred times that if a God sustains nature it would reveal Him without ambiguity.

You are going to have to do a better job of explaining why your means of deriving morality are more "intellectually robust than others", particularly the considerations that I have described as the primary moral considerations. What exactly are your means of deriving morality? (You personally interpret scripture that you believe is divine?) I have not seen one reasonable argument. Only appeals to "faith" that Jesus is the one true way to morality.

Ok, I start with several assumptions (which is my faith) and go from there.

Silver Bullet wrote:
I will point out 2 things though:

1) demeaning a particular morality may only be a good thing when the particular morality in question is one that diminishes the well-being or increases the suffering of others, as your example does. The consideration of how the particular morality in question impacts others is what is primary.

I think this a great morality to strive for. However, you have started out with the assumption that diminishing well-being or increasing suffering in others is bad in the first place. My point is that theoretically, one does not have to start with this assumption; and, one can still be following a perfectly reasoned thread of logic. What matters is that starting assumption; and a "faith" essentially has to be used to believe item 1.) to be true.

2) the reason we (and Shelly Kagan as well I am sure) can agree that demeaning the particular morality you described is good Veritas, is because we are fully aware of the harm that such a morality would cause others, without a need to "define harm" or determine why "harm is wrong".

We already see a disagreement in our culture today forming over homosexuality. I think you've mentioned it before. We hold two opposing views on what we believe to be harmful to people. You believe it is harmful and oppressive to those enganging in that lifestyle for me to claim that it is wrong. Conversely, I believe those enganging in that lifestyle are being hurtful to themselves, those around them, and our society.

 

[Silver Bullet]

I don't have much time at the moment . . .

I think our disagreement here is simply coming down to a definition of terms in what extraordinary is.

I suspect you will conveniently define the extraordinary as that which cannot be supported by evidence.

, regardless of that, there is not really a natural explanation for the resurrection, which is the hingepoint of Christianity. This sets it apart.

Correct: the hingepoint of Christianity is highly questionable. In fact, there is no good reason to accept it as true; there is only wishful thinking, which I am convinced is what you call "faith".

I don't think it's irrelevent when deriving a morality. It is a point that is being overlooked and it is especially relevant when those doing the "overlooking" consider humankind nothing more than an advanced animal. We can do any one of those things: ponder, consider consequences, reason, empathize - and yet it will not nessecarily lead to a good morality. Even by the standard used by Kagan.

Clearly, Christian morality far from guarantees good moral behavior also. It is a basic fact about humanity that we fail to live up to our moral expectations of ourselves and one another. This has NOTHING to do with whether our moral expectations legitimately come from a consideration of the well-being and suffering of others without need of God, or from a book we consider to be the infallible Word of God. You claim that the latter is superior to and more intellectually robust than the former, yet I continue to appreciate no argument to support that claim. In fact, I am quite sure that the consideration of the wellbeing/harm of others is precisely the primary consideration you apply to the Bible when you read it and decide that its morality is appealing to you.

Assuming humans can almost universally agree that "things which hurt/harm are wrong", using nothing but a morality devoid of God, is inconsistent.

It is inconsistent in that "faith" is rejected as a viable starting point, yet "faith" is actually being used as a starting point. The starting point for any derivation of morality is based on just that, - "faith".

What "faith" is required to say that "rape is evil"?

Rape is objectively evil. The only thing required to recognize that are the faculties that advanced apes called humans possess.

We already see a disagreement in our culture today forming over homosexuality. I think you've mentioned it before. We hold two opposing views on what we believe to be harmful to people. You believe it is harmful and oppressive to those enganging in that lifestyle for me to claim that it is wrong. Conversely, I believe those enganging in that lifestyle are being hurtful to themselves, those around them, and our society.

And just what would that harm be that homosexuals are inflicting upon themselves and those around them?

SB

 

[Veritas]

I don't have much time at the moment . . .

That's fine, these conversations are sometimes hard to focus on when we have jobs to do and lives to live. I've neglected to answer one of your posts for purposes of time as well. My apologies.

I suspect you will conveniently define the extraordinary as that which cannot be supported by evidence.

That's not my intent, but I suppose you might look at it that way.

And just what would that harm be that homosexuals are inflicting upon themselves and those around them?

I think this should be a discussion for another time. The point I was making is that the determination of "what is harmful" is not to be glossed over.

Clearly, Christian morality far from guarantees good moral behavior also. It is a basic fact about humanity that we fail to live up to our moral expectations of ourselves and one another.

Yes, I completely agree that being Christian does not guarantee good moral behaviour. It is not so much my belief that Jesus came to make bad people good; but that he came to make dead people live.

This has NOTHING to do with whether our moral expectations legitimately come from a consideration of the well-being and suffering of others without need of God, or from a book we consider to be the infallible Word of God. You claim that the latter is superior to and more intellectually robust than the former, yet I continue to appreciate no argument to support that claim.

I claim I am being consistent with my thought process. I fully admit I base my morality on faith. And I work logically from that point; rather than overlooking the fact I made a presupposition in the first place.

In fact, I am quite sure that the consideration of the wellbeing/harm of others is precisely the primary consideration you apply to the Bible when you read it and decide that its morality is appealing to you.

It does have a ring of Truth to it, yes. An honest introspective look at myself reveals that, although yes, I do think the consideration and wellbeing/harm of others to be somewhat primary, I also take into consideration the desires and needs of myself. The Bible teaches complete relinquishment of self to Christ, which is not something I can say part of me is particularly fond of.

What "faith" is required to say that "rape is evil"?

Rape is objectively evil. The only thing required to recognize that are the faculties that advanced apes called humans possess.

You've presupposed it is objectively evil. (By the way, I think that is a VERY good presupposition) Conversely, Nietzsche had other presuppositions that were primary, that are not yours or mine or Kagan's. Nietzsche remained logically consistent in his thought process: I am not saying I agree with Nietzsche, just that he remained logically consistent.

Nietzsche presupposed that humans are always attempting to inflict their wills upon others. Every action toward another, according to Nietzsche, is born of a basic desire to bring that other under one's own power in some way. Gift-giving, claims of love, praise, or harmful acts such as physical violence, carrying tales, etc. all stem from the same motive: to exert the will over others. Nietzsche's presupposition entails that human beings are basically and only egoistic. Therefore there are no truly altruistic actions. The theory of the will to power is not limited to the psychology of human beings. Instead, it is the essential nature of the universe, manifest in all things. Growth, survival, dominance in business or physical competition, all are seen as elements of this will.

Some see Nietzsche's "will to power" as life-affirming. Creatures affirm instinct in exerting power and dominance. The suffering born of conflict between competing wills and the efforts to overcome one's environment is not evil, but a part of existence to be embraced in that it signifies the healthy expression of the natural order. Enduring satisfaction and pleasure result from living by instinct and successfully exerting the will to power. From: http://www.malaspina.org/Nietzschef.htm

The following are Nietzsche's own words:

The strong men, the masters, regain the pure conscience of a beast of prey; monsters filled with joy, they can return from a fearful succession of murder, arson, rape, and torture with the same joy in their hearts, the same contentment in their souls as if they had indulged in some student's rag.... When a man is capable of commanding, when he is by nature a "Master," when he is violent in act and gesture, of what importance are treaties to him?... To judge morality properly, it must be replaced by two concepts borrowed from zoology: the taming of a beast and the breeding of a specific species. From: http://econ161.berkeley.edu/tceh/Nietzsche.html

 

[Evointrinsic]

What i see you doing is actually a bit of mistake. Most people who believe in evolution are actually theists. And seeing how Atheism isnt really a religion, not all people who are Atheists believe in evolution as it is not a requirement of Atheism or Evolution.

 

[GojuBrian]

What i see you doing is actually a bit of mistake. Most people who believe in evolution are actually theists. And seeing how Atheism isnt really a religion, not all people who are Atheists believe in evolution as it is not a requirement of Atheism or Evolution.

What do atheists who don't believe in evolution believe in ?? Everyone believes in something, even if that something is nothing. I think most atheists just really don't know. They need solid proof of Gods existence to believe. There is no such proof,so they choose atheism. God never set out to prove he exists, he simply said " I Am."

 

[Evointrinsic]

What do atheists who don't believe in evolution believe in ?? Everyone believes in something, even if that something is nothing. I think most atheists just really don't know. They need solid proof of Gods existence to believe. There is no such proof,so they choose atheism. God never set out to prove he exists, he simply said " I Am."

Atheists who dont believe in evolution can believe in whatever they want. Atheism only means that you dont believe in a god. Technically everyone on earth is an atheist to some degree. If you are christian then you dont believe in Krishna (a Hindu god), making you an Atheist to an extent. Atheists like myself just take it one god further.

Atheists in the way we are describing, however, can believe in whatever they want. They can believe a tomato created man if they wanted to (as long as they didnt think tomato's were gods). They can believe that aliens created the universe or that Hydrogen is what sprang life into existence, they could even believe that Jesus was alive and had all the powers the bible described, it really doesnt matter what an atheist believes in as long as he or she doesnt believe in god. (which, once again is the direct description of an atheist)

Alas, you are correct, for the most part. Some Atheists just really dont know. And because there is no evidence of a god, that usually is the reason why they are Atheists. However, some atheists declare that they KNOW there is no god. Making them excluded from the ones you were referring to.

As for God simply stating "I Am", that would considered poor evidence to most Atheists. Because you have to confirm that god actually said that and it wasn't simply Man saying it. You also have to confirm which god said that and meant and which way is the best way to follow that god. There are so many unconfirmed things about god or in a religion through an atheists view. However its not only True Atheists that are the only skeptically one. I assume your Christian? There for you are most likely skeptical about the Muslim religion. And Mulsims are just as skeptical about Christianity for most of the same reasons.

 

[Guest]

Atheists like myself just take it one god further.

Atheist cliché number 263. By the way, Evointrinsic, did you know that I am not a stamp collector?

 

[JoJo]

By the way, Evointrinsic, did you know that I am not a stamp collector?

minnesota, I've been meaning to ask you about your signature line! What does it mean?

 

[Guest]

By the way, Evointrinsic, did you know that I am not a stamp collector?

minnesota, I've been meaning to ask you about your signature line! What does it mean?

The denotative meaning is simply that I do not collect stamps. The connotative meaning is that defining atheism as "without belief in theism" is asinine and non-contributory. Basically, it's a weasel definition employed by atheists, often unknowingly, attempting to avoid their responsibility to the conversation -- which is to support their perspective. The definition has reached the status of myth as atheists now seek to defend it with such topsy turvy reasoning that it bends even the minds of the most fundamentalist of the fundamentalists. It has also become encircled by other fanciful notions like "you can't prove a negative," "atheism is the default position," and "babies are atheists."

In other words, if the "without belief" atheist is unwilling to actually engage the question, "Does God exist?" then why should I bother appeasing them by presenting my perspective and reasons? I should not. Thus, my response to the question is, "I am not a stamp collector!"

I know, a little overdramatic, but it makes things more entertaining. Or... perhaps, boring.

 

[JoJo]

lol minnesota, I don't think I understood a word of what you just said.

(maybe I'm just too tired and should go to sleep hehe)

 

[animal]

Minnesota, does Krishna exist?