View Full Version : A question for all Atheists
In case anyone needs clarification: each of those sentiments was expressed (using those terms) at different points in the conversation, but not in one continuous sentence.
Or put another way: He never said that. No big deal, and I can understand it. Just wanted to set the record straight.
If your argument against God boils down to "you can't be certain," then, yeah, ya' got me. But then my questions become a) why this is a good standard to have in the first place and b) how do you manage to believe in other things you aren't certain about.
It's not about getting you or anybody else but I want to start with this because I think it strikes at the heart of this entire debate: If you can't be certain of a particular claim--be it religious, metaphysical or scientific--where does that leave you and how should you proceed? it seems it essentially leaves you where you started and nowhere to proceed. In terms of religion, you can choose to take that proverbial leap of faith, but why believe and devote yourself to something that may be mistaken?
You want theists to know you think their worldview is a futile, vacuous pursuit, and their God is a terrible moral instructor, but that it's not your business? Then why say all that?
I'll admit I gave you a hard time for a spell when you refused to define objective morality but this casts my views in an unfair light. My position on metaphysics, religion, morality in The Bible has been academic, quite conventional really, and while I may think adherents follow what amounts to folklore, their beliefs are their own business and no doubt valuable to them.
If you're defining "speculation" as anything not empirically observed, then your claim is simply true by definition, and boils down to "the non-physical isn't physical." In which case, yes, I "concede" this. Though I never disputed it.
Well, this is the problem that plagues metaphysics and theology which is why they languish.
This is another one of those half-truths that gets passed around millions of times without anyone bothering to look into it. The only verse that can be remotely contorted to say this, to my mind, is the one in Joshua (which I just read the other day, by coincidence), where he commands the Sun to "stand still." To say this endorses geocentrism is a huge stretch, given that from the perspective of the person saying it, the sun stands still in the sky. In other words, it's one of those things that only looks wrong if you're looking for things that look wrong.
Also, where did this paragraph even come from? It feels like just random pot shots, disconnected from anything we've been talking about.
The Koran certainly asserts the sun moves and while The Bible may not (the writer of Joshua certainly thinks it does) it makes other errors, some cosmic, which I'm sure you're aware of. This isn't a potshot; it's to demonstrate what I've been saying about these holy books from the beginning: they're products of their age not divine revelation as claimed.
It's not misleading at all, because the point of the argument is not the number of religions, but the number of adherents within them. The fact that four are basically branches of the same governing, initial religion only strengthens my point that there is broad agreement.
But regardless, even if this were not true, it wouldn't be telling or significant, any more than it would be telling that you recognize other beliefs as false, just not your own. This is only revealing to someone who has already lumped them all under the category of folklore to begin with.
I agree that nothing is proven here, but I'm curious about these four religions that branch off the initial one which I gather is Judaism. I thought only Christianity and Islam had a relationship with Judaism.
I don't see how swapping in the word "dictate" would invalidate anything I just said (I used it myself, after all).
I misunderstood your reply but it seems you don't have a rational basis for your morality as I said before and, yes, I know that does nothing for my position.
And I don't understand how thinking of morality as a cognitive phenomenon changes any of it, either.
Morality is a cognition which involves neural activity which is physical so the principle of assigning a divine cause to physical phenomena would stand. However, I think this principle is really applicable to anything that's not understood. Just because something is not explained doesn't justify assigning a divine reason for it. God/s can't be a default position.
And how reasonable would it have been to believe in evolution before you'd ever heard of it?
That's my point. Until Darwin the explanation for biodiversity was a divine one because it couldn't be explained otherwise.
You cannot trumpet empirical claims above others and then brush off simple questions about your morality with "well, maybe we'll discover something that retroactively justifies what I already believe." That's aggressively speculative. Aggressively non-empirical. It is completely inconsistent with the ideology you've been espousing.
And it's worse than that, even, because you're not waiting on a scientific breakthrough: you're waiting on an answer to a question that is definitionally outside of science to begin with. Science is about whys and hows, not oughts. It is literally impossible for any scientific breakthrough to prove that something is moral or immoral, or that something like duty exists.
I don't see a problem with saying we don't know at the moment, which isn't to say there aren't theories some find convincing. Remember that neurology and psychology are very young fields so it may turn out that oughts will be explained--not that there aren't theories that claim to explain that already. What I think you can't do is assign a divine cause simply because something is not yet understood.
I don't see how this makes sense, either as an answer or as a comparison. "Deities" is not the analog for morality, religion is, because we also know that to exist. You believe religion exists, but you don't believe it has a rational basis (God).
I think religion originally had a rational basis because the world was not understood and I do think there are understandable or rational reasons why people still follow religion such as community, hope, purpose, answers, and more.
Similarly, you can believe morality exists (in the sense that ideas exist, at least), but that doesn't mean it has a rational basis. And that was the question: how can you hope to reconcile the fact that you require proof to believe in God, but not the moral standard which governs your life? The fact that morality exists as an idea/impulse doesn't answer this question at all.
I don't think I understand the question. Why would I need proof to believe in my morality if it's manifest. The question is how it develops outside of it being learned through one's parents and culture. And I'm still not sure why morality must be rational. If, for argument's sake, morality was purely biological like something we may be seeing in other primates, why is that a problem?
And it's worse than that, even, because you're not waiting on a scientific breakthrough: you're waiting on an answer to a question that is definitionally outside of science to begin with. Science is about whys and hows, not oughts. It is literally impossible for any scientific breakthrough to prove that something is moral or immoral, or that something like duty exists.
I realized I misread your point here, possibly confused it with another I remember coming across about "ought", so I'm correcting my answer to it here rather than editing it to ensure you see it. I don't think science can prove what's moral or not--although there are some who apparently think science can be used to inform us of an optimal morality--I think that science may eventually determine why we have morality, why he have "oughts."
In terms of religion, you can choose to take that proverbial leap of faith, but why believe and devote yourself to something that may be mistaken?
I don't see a problem with saying we don't know at the moment, which isn't to say there aren't theories some find convincing. Remember that neurology and psychology are very young fields so it may turn out that oughts will be explained
Surely you see the problem here? On one hand you're asking how someone can base the way they live on something unproven. On the other hand you're saying you do precisely that, by following a moral code without knowing what it's based in, if anything.
I don't think I understand the question. Why would I need proof to believe in my morality if it's manifest.
Because the only part that's manifest--the mere impulse--isn't what's being questioned. What's being questioned is whether or not that impulse has any rational basis.
I'm sure you, like all of us, have many impulses that you acknowledge aren't good to follow merely because you have them. So why is this one different? Why doesn't your innate moral sense get subjected to the same gauntlet of skepticism and justification as every other impulse (or every religion)?
The question is how it develops outside of it being learned through one's parents and culture. And I'm still not sure why morality must be rational. If, for argument's sake, morality was purely biological like something we may be seeing in other primates, why is that a problem?
Because it's simply incompatible with the other beliefs. An empiricist making all sorts of life decisions based on a completely sub-rational code of conduct?
Surely you see the problem here? On one hand you're asking how someone can base the way they live on something unproven. On the other hand you're saying you do precisely that, by following a moral code without knowing what it's based in, if anything.
Because the only part that's manifest--the mere impulse--isn't what's being questioned. What's being questioned is whether or not that impulse has any rational basis.
I'm sure you, like all of us, have many impulses that you acknowledge aren't good to follow merely because you have them. So why is this one different? Why doesn't your innate moral sense get subjected to the same gauntlet of skepticism and justification as every other impulse (or every religion)?
Because it's simply incompatible with the other beliefs. An empiricist making all sorts of life decisions based on a completely sub-rational code of conduct?
I'm unsure why VFN is claiming his morality is "faith based". But morality which isn't based on tangible things is incorrect, plain and simple.
People make judgment calls about the best decisions based on their situation awareness, but it has a rational and biological basis when done correctly, rather than a blind adherence to some code of conduct which someone claims to 'believe in' but doesn't even know why. Everything I believe in I can explain in terms of biology, cause and effect, etc
The idea that 'having faith' that a specific deity exists is no different than 'having faith' that you won't die in a car wreck when you drive to work simply isn't true - it's an argument from ignorance - it's also double talk on the part of some religious people (ex. claiming the Bible, Koran, etc is the "one true belief" on one hand, while at the same time claiming it's "based just on faith" and therefore "no different" than any other belief, when that position suits them).
Yeah, you've made that claim before, and every time I questioned it, you bailed.
Three separate times in this thread you've suggested that your morality was rational. All three times I questioned this, and all three times you gave an opaque answer like "positive legacy" or "evolutionary purpose." And all three times, when I questioned that, you left the thread.
Here are the examples:
You didn't explain anything: you're still making opaque references to things like "evolutionary purpose" without explaining what it is, how you know what it is, how you know whether or not something is in "harmony" with it, and what rational argument you can make if someone has a different answer to any of those questions.
See, this is a perfect example of the loop you're trapped in: I ask you why your morality is rational. You say because it comes from your evolutionary purpose. I ask you why your evolutionary purpose is rational. You say because it has positive benefits. I ask why those are rational, and you say it's because they fit into our evolutionary purpose. You're making me chase you from one phrase to another without ever actually defending any of them.
It sidesteps the question to just say "benefit" without explaining what you mean. Which benefits take priority, why, and why are your answers to those questions more rational than any other answer someone might give?
This is essentially the same question each time, and you stopped replying immediately after all three. I'm thinking that's not a coincidence.
Enough of the silly evasions. Either defend your claim properly or have the humility to bow out. But don't bolt when the questions get tough and them come back later like nothing happened.
DC Ambrose
02-21-15, 12:16 PM
I consider myself acrostic.
Surely you see the problem here? On one hand you're asking how someone can base the way they live on something unproven. On the other hand you're saying you do precisely that, by following a moral code without knowing what it's based in, if anything.
Because the only part that's manifest--the mere impulse--isn't what's being questioned. What's being questioned is whether or not that impulse has any rational basis.
I'm sure you, like all of us, have many impulses that you acknowledge aren't good to follow merely because you have them. So why is this one different? Why doesn't your innate moral sense get subjected to the same gauntlet of skepticism and justification as every other impulse (or every religion)?
Because it's simply incompatible with the other beliefs. An empiricist making all sorts of life decisions based on a completely sub-rational code of conduct?
When I offered the idea of an irrational morality I didn't mean there isn't a basis for it, only that it may be hardwired, formulated intuitively or on the periphery of our awareness, at least in the first instance. It's general basis, which I've offered several times before, is self-interest or mutual self-interest within a social setting. Of late, I've chosen to take the position that I don't need to provide any answers for morality's basis because it's you that's made a claim about it. You argue morality has a divine basis and, as yet, I haven't seen you establish it. While I don't see how I'm obligated to prove anything, brain scans have mapped neurological moral activity, shown it differs or isn't present in damaged ones, can be manipulated with stimuli, and seems apparent in other social species, especially certain primates, all which demonstrate its biological, evolutionary nature.
The last discussion I entered here was because somebody metioned the evolution of brain activity. I of course was ridiculed for being a creationist. Now here we are again talking about the evolution of brain activity as hard fact and the burden of "proof" is on the weak minded creationist. Someday I will get a good explanation of how some theory becomes infallible while other is comic relief. I have been a part of a lot of these discussions and have yet to hear anything resembling a logical explanation.
The last discussion I entered here was because somebody metioned the evolution of brain activity. I of course was ridiculed for being a creationist.
Now here we are again talking about the evolution of brain activity as hard fact
It is.
and the burden of "proof" is on the weak minded creationist.
Because if I told you that Zeus is who causes lightning storms (instead of electrical currents in the atmosphere) , then the burden's on you to "prove Zeus doesn't exist"? There's no law against believing in anything, but claiming they're 'equally valid' (while at the same time duplicitous claiming that "The Bible is literally true! Evolution as a lie" as the apologists do despite the prior claim of "equal validity") just isn't correct.
Someday I will get a good explanation of how some theory becomes infallible while other is comic relief.
Why is the 'theory' that Hitler killed 12 million people in the Holocaust 'infallible', and the theory that it was a "Zionist hoax" comedic relief?
There's no "infallible" theory since they are all observations - but the truth is that the overwhelming scientific evidence supports evolution as fact; the theory that a specific God from a specific religious book created the world in 6 days - and that all of science for the past 150 years has been wrong, and it's an ancient desert tribe that somehow discovered got it all right. Well, that theory isn't supported by science or evidence anymore than alternative theories about the Holocaust.
I have been a part of a lot of these discussions and have yet to hear anything resembling a logical explanation.
And next you'll probably "get offended" over comparing it to Holocaust denial, or "trutherism", or other conspiracy theories - even though evidence and plausibility wise, that is what it is, a fringe belief.
Plus there's no reason there could not be "a god" and why he could not have used evolution to 'create' life. The belief however that the Genesis story is literally true is a different matter entirely.
Of late, I've chosen to take the position that I don't need to provide any answers for morality's basis because it's you that's made a claim about it. You argue that morality has a divine basis and, as yet, I haven't seen you establish it.
No sir, we were arguing about whether or not secular morality has any rational basis. And given that you've already agreed that the validity of my own beliefs has nothing to do with the validity of yours, I'm puzzled as to why you think you can deflect the question this way, anyway.
Whatever your thought process there, it also doesn't seem to have anything to do with the contradiction I presented, which I'll repeat:
In terms of religion, you can choose to take that proverbial leap of faith, but why believe and devote yourself to something that may be mistaken?
I don't see a problem with saying we don't know at the moment, which isn't to say there aren't theories some find convincing.
It's a pretty clear problem: you incredulously ask why someone would allow their behavior to be dictated by something they're not sure of, yet you admit to doing the exact same thing in following your own moral code.
So why the selective skepticism? Why does religion get interrogated by the bouncer while atheism walks in with a trench coat full of presuppositions?
...brain scans have mapped neurological moral activity, shown it differs or isn't present in damaged ones, can be manipulated with stimuli, and seems apparent in other social species, especially certain primates, all which demonstrate its biological, evolutionary nature.
It demonstrates that they exist as impulses, but the question was whether (and why) they should be trusted. I'm going to assume you don't think every impulse you have is automatically valid, so why ascribe these ones more importance than any other?
So why the selective skepticism? Why does religion get interrogated by the bouncer while atheism walks in with a trench coat full of presuppositions?
Probably because religious beliefs tend to be a lot more specific while 'secular' beliefs which are just 'beliefs' more broad or generic.
For example, someone 'believing aliens exist' wouldn't be the same as saying 'they believe Darth Vader exists in real life'.
Also because a big component of many religions is believing based on 'faith' or blind trust that the authors of the religious texts 'knew what they were talking about', versus things which are actually observable in nature (ex. believing in evolution which is observable and testable, versus believing that everything 'was created from nothing' which isn't observable or testable or repeatable in any way).
None of that applies here; we're not arguing specific religious claims versus broad secular principles. We're talking about equivalent claims about morality in both theistic and atheistic worldviews. I think this is fairly clear from the context.
Also, what of the question I keep asking (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=1259443#post1259443)? I've asked point blank four times without a response, and now you're ignoring them again in lieu of answering questions directed at other people.
If there is no answer, then you can simply withdraw the initial claim and we're all done. Otherwise, I plan to keep asking.
Yeah, you've made that claim before, and every time I questioned it, you bailed.
Three separate times in this thread you've suggested that your morality was rational. All three times I questioned this, and all three times you gave an opaque answer like "positive legacy" or "evolutionary purpose." And all three times, when I questioned that, you left the thread.
Here are the examples:
This is essentially the same question each time, and you stopped replying immediately after all three. I'm thinking that's not a coincidence.
Enough of the silly evasions. Either defend your claim properly or have the humility to bow out. But don't bolt when the questions get tough and them come back later like nothing happened.
Evolutionary purpose is observable in nature; and has positive benefits which are observable in nature.
Things such as "rewards in the afterlife" are not observable or testable in nature.
Evolutionary purpose is observable in nature; and has positive benefits which are observable in nature.
So what? If being "observable in nature" rationally justified something, everything would be rational simply by virtue of existing.
So what? If being "observable in nature" rationally justified something, everything would be rational simply by virtue of existing.
No, the benefits are observable in nature.
The "benefits" of many religious practices are not observable in nature and hinge on blind faith that they will have some "benefit" in an afterlife, even when they completely conflict with benefits in nature.
As an extreme example, a jihadist believes that 'dying in a holy war against the infidels' will reward him with virgins in paradise (even though there is no way to test whether or not said 'benefit' is true or not, it simply requires 'blind faith').
No sir, we were arguing about whether or not secular morality has any rational basis. And given that you've already agreed that the validity of my own beliefs has nothing to do with the validity of yours, I'm puzzled as to why you think you can deflect the question this way, anyway.
Whatever your thought process there, it also doesn't seem to have anything to do with the contradiction I presented, which I'll repeat:
It's a pretty clear problem: you incredulously ask why someone would allow their behavior to be dictated by something they're not sure of, yet you admit to doing the exact same thing in following your own moral code.
So why the selective skepticism? Why does religion get interrogated by the bouncer while atheism walks in with a trench coat full of presuppositions?
It demonstrates that they exist as impulses, but the question was whether (and why) they should be trusted. I'm going to assume you don't think every impulse you have is automatically valid, so why ascribe these ones more importance than any other?
I've answered this. I gave you a basis but academically don't need to because I never made a claim. I have demonstrated, however, that it's organic and has an evolutionary aspect and if you want to say god works through biological processes then there's nothing much I can say about that. As to valid impulses, I don't know what that means.
No, the benefits are observable in nature.
Like what? I asked this earlier, and you basically just described survival. Is your morality just survival by another name, then?
Also, what part of these answers is supposed to be rational? What makes your definition of "positive benefits" more rational than any other?
I've answered this. I gave you a basis but academically don't need to because I never made a claim.
If you say you "never made a claim," does that mean you don't believe your morality has a rational basis? And if so, and if you don't claim any rationality for your own beliefs, then why do you demand it of religion?
I have demonstrated, however, that it's organic and has an evolutionary aspect and if you want to say god works through biological processes then there's nothing much I can say about that.
Irrational impulses and feelings don't travel by organic means, too? Religious thoughts don't travel down neural pathways? If so, then the method in which they are transmitted doesn't address anything.
As to valid impulses, I don't know what that means.
It means that having an impulse is different than being able to rationally justify following it.
Like what? I asked this earlier, and you basically just described survival.
Is your morality just survival by another name, then?
Essentially yes, because that's all there is in nature and it's genetically impossible for us to do anything else. Survival in the good sense tends to benefits others around us though - even altruistic acts do have a 'self' motive behind them (ex. a "warm fuzzy feeling, which is actual a rush of pleasure chemicals to the brain) but they benefit others as well rather than harming others for our own gain.
Survival at the 'expense' of others doesn't offer overall happiness or rewards - most psychology studies show that sociopathic or predatory personalities are unhappy; they aren't able to bond with others in normal ways so they are deficient in a lot of pleasure chemicals that 'good people have' - basically they're addicted to acquiring purely material gain or 'power' over others just to feel 'normal', similar to how a drug addict needs more of the same drug just to feel 'normal'.
So nature seems to have its own punishment/reward system for good and bad behavior (even when a criminal escapes legal justice). Which is why the "survival of the fittest" image depicting the "most ruthless" one as "winning" isn't correct - survival in evolution actually has more to do with adaptability than with just being 'ruthless' or 'forceful'.
Also, what part of these answers is supposed to be rational? What makes your definition of "positive benefits" more rational than any other?
We tend to define 'rational' based on the cause/effect and ending reward. That's why we'd say investing your life savings in the lottery is 'irrational'.
If someone wants to invent some new definition suggesting that things that are harmful are 'more rational' than things which are beneficial (ex. "suicide more rational than living") than that makes the term pretty meaningless.
Essentially yes, because that's all there is in nature and it's genetically impossible for us to do anything else.
If it's impossible for you to do anything else, that's not rationality. That's just compulsion.
We tend to define 'rational' based on the cause/effect and ending reward. That's why we'd say investing your life savings in the lottery is 'irrational'.
We say investing your savings in the lottery is irrational because we presuppose that the person wants more money. But what if the question is "should you want money?" Then what. Basically, I'm asking you why you're going somewhere, and you're just explaining the best way to get there.
Dinner's calling my name, but I'll be back. Methinks we're finally getting to the bottom of these dual (but related) lines of inquiry.
If you say you "never made a claim," does that mean you don't believe your morality has a rational basis? And if so, and if you don't claim any rationality for your own beliefs, then why do you demand it of religion?
It ultimately means that until you establish it's divinely based we continue to accept it as an organic process.
What's that got to do with it? Irrational impulses and feelings don't travel by organic means? Religious thoughts don't travel down neural pathways?
Irrational impulses and religious thoughts are organic.
If it's impossible for you to do anything else, that's not rationality. That's just compulsion.
No it's impossible from a biological perspective - everything we do whether it's compulsory or planned has this motive deep down because that's the biological root. Nothing else exists in nature.
For example even a monk who shuns all material possessions and lives in solitary is still doing it with 'survival' as a motive.
Problem is you seem to think of survival as pure 'materialism', when human 'survival' is more complicated than that.
If someone for example volunteers to feed the homeless or donate to charitiy they're doing that with a "survival" motive from a biological perspective (in their case it's a 'warm fuzzy feeling of pleasure chemicals' versus something like money, sex, or a drug-induced buzz) - but this doesn't make it any less "generous", it's just describing how people's brains function.
I'd say the 'rationality' would be in maximizing the reward potential, both short and long term. Ex. Using cocaine regularly provides a "shot-term" reward but long-term destruction.
We say investing your savings in the lottery is irrational because we presuppose that the person wants more money. But what if the question is "should you want money?" Then what. Basically, I'm asking you why you're going somewhere, and you're just explaining the best way to get there.
Again though you're essentially arguing that the term 'rational' has no meaning - ex. if a person doesn't 'want' to live then suicide becomes a "rational" choice.
I'd say there are some things which people "want" on a pure biological level which we can't "really change" despite our claims of individuality. Ex. On a biological level everyone "wants" good health - so while a crack addict might not "want" to change because they're addicted to the short-term highs (despite the long term damage to their body), deep down their body does not "want" to be in the state it is - it's simply resistant to change and the short-term 'punishment' of withdrawl.
But if you gave someone the ability to have any wish of their choosing granted, no one would "wish to be a crack addict", or "wish to be an alcoholic".
It ultimately means that until you establish it's divinely based we continue to accept it as an organic process.
I'm not sure why you think this invalidates any question I'm asking. Not only is this unrelated, but the arguments I've been making assume it's an organic process!
You say you have no obligation to answer because you've "made no claim." So again I ask: do you claim your morality is rational? It's a simple question that is in no way predicated on you accepting a divine source for morality.
If you answer yes, then the "made no claim" deflection is invalid. If you answer no, then my follow-up question was/is: why do you demand rationality of religion when you're perfectly willing to adopt a non-rational claim in your own worldview?
Irrational impulses and religious thoughts are organic.
If irrational thoughts are also organic, then that means being organic has nothing to do with whether or not a thought is rational. So when I ask you what rational basis there is for something, pointing out that it is an organic process doesn't really have anything to do with it.
No it's impossible from a biological perspective - everything we do whether it's compulsory or planned has this motive deep down because that's the
biological root. Nothing else exists in nature.
If this were true it would mean everything is rational simply because we do it. That isn't a test of rationality at all; it's just a tautology.
And we know this can't be true, because you've already called lots of things irrational. Which means other things do exist in nature, and you're using some standard other than mere existence to decide what is rational, and what is not. What is this standard, and how did you arrive at it?
Preemptive argument: if you say something like "it's rational if it fits our evolutionary purpose," that's circular, because this line of questioning is about how and why you define that phrase in the first place.
Problem is you seem to think of survival as pure 'materialism', when human 'survival' is more complicated than that.
Nope. I understand the distinctions you're making. Partially because you go on to explain them over and over whether I've exhibited any confusion or not. ;) I understand that "survival" on this scale encompasses selfless acts and the like. I understand the distinction between species-wide survival and individual survival. That's not why I disagree.
Again though you're essentially arguing that the term 'rational' has no meaning - ex. if a person doesn't 'want' to live then suicide becomes a "rational" choice.
Great example: explain why suicide is irrational. If you say "because almost nobody wants to do it," then you have to explain why your standard for rationality is based only on how frequently something is done, etc. You're packing a lot of presuppositions into things just because they are common (IE: wanting to live), but that's not a philosophical justification. If lots of people wanting something rationally justified it, you'd have no grounds from which to criticize religion.
The point here is that you're not actually defending anything as being rational--you're defending actions as being rational once you presuppose a certain goal is desirable. That's not the same thing. I'm asking you to defend the goals themselves, not the means with which we achieve them.
Example: I once saw a man pull across traffic with a giant U-turn on a bridge and start to drive the wrong way. After a few moments I saw him stop dead in the road, open his door, and pick up a hat that was on the ground. His actions were perfectly rational as a way to get the hat. But they were not rational as a whole because his goal was not a worthwhile one relative to the risks. I'm asking you to justify why these broad goals for humanity are worthwhile, not describe how to achieve those goals once we accept them.
If this were true it would mean everything is rational simply because we do it. That isn't a test of rationality at all; it's just a tautology.
Only things which provide tangible benefits are rational. Even "emotional rewards" (like volunteering to feed the homeless without receiving any pay in return) still provides tangible benefits (ex. the 'good fuzzy feeling' of helping someone is a chemical rush to the brain, and has many health benefits).
And we know this can't be true, because you've already called lots of things irrational. Which means other things do exist in nature, and you're using some standard other than mere existence to decide what is rational, and what is not. What is this standard, and how did you arrive at it?
Preemptive argument: if you say something like "it's rational if it fits our evolutionary purpose," that's circular, because this line of questioning is about how and why you define that phrase in the first place.
Again, things which provide tangible benefits which are testable in nature are what are deemed rational.
Nope. I understand the distinctions you're making. Partially because you go on to explain them over and over whether I've exhibited any confusion or not. ;) I understand that "survival" on this scale encompasses selfless acts and the like. I understand the distinction between species-wide survival and individual survival. That's not why I disagree.
Great example: explain why suicide is irrational. If you say "because almost nobody wants to do it," then you have to explain why your standard for rationality is based only on how frequently something is done, etc. You're packing a lot of presuppositions into things just because they are common (IE: wanting to live), but that's not a philosophical justification. If lots of people wanting something rationally justified it, you'd have no grounds from which to criticize religion.
The point here is that you're not actually defending anything as being rational--you're defending actions as being rational once you presuppose a certain goal is desirable. That's not the same thing. I'm asking you to defend the goals themselves, not the means with which we achieve them.
These are the things which are considered desirable by the most basic biological definition (food, shelter, purpose).
If you're arguing that it would "be more rational" for example for a species not to reproduce and simply die off then you're opening the term "rational" to have no tangible meaning; from the biological definition this is desirable.
Example: I once saw a man pull across traffic with a giant U-turn on a bridge and start to drive the wrong way. After a few moments I saw him stop dead in the road, open his door, and pick up a hat that was on the ground. His actions were perfectly rational as a way to get the hat. But they were not rational as a whole because his goal was not a worthwhile one relative to the risks. I'm asking you to justify why these broad goals for humanity are worthwhile, not describe how to achieve those goals once we accept them.
From a biological POV they are desirable, not from a "human consensus". It's desirable because it has tangible benefits.
The idea behind a lot of religions is to do things which are irrational from a biological POV, sometimes even harmful in the case of more extreme religious sects (ex. Jehovah's Witnesses being against blood transfusions, or religious sects which shun medical care, even when their children die in the processes), hinging on the idea of receiving a reward for it in the afterlife - but since the is based just on blind trust that the religious leader "knew what he was talking about", not on tangible evidence, this is why it's deemed irrational.
It would be like blinding trusting that a Nigerian scammer really is going to deposit $100,000,000 in your bank account when you hand your number over to him, even ignoring all of the verifiable evidence (and common sense) against that.
If someone wants to argue that handing the bank account number over to him and getting scammed, even knowing this will happen is somehow "rational" - well then it gives the term rational no tangible meaning.
Only things which provide tangible benefits are rational.
I addressed this awhile ago (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=1254428#post1254428) (it wasn't answered). I'll reproduce it here:
It sidesteps the question to just say "benefit" without explaining what you mean. Which benefits take priority, why, and why are your answers to those questions more rational than any other answer someone might give?
Even "emotional rewards" (like volunteering to feed the homeless without receiving any pay in return) still provides tangible benefits (ex. the 'good fuzzy feeling' of helping someone is a chemical rush to the brain, and has many health benefits).
Bad behavior often provides tangible benefits, as well, up to and including emotional rewards.
These are the things which are considered desirable by the most basic biological definition (food, shelter, purpose).
So? There's no logical principle which says that our base biological desires are governed by rational thought processes. If that were all it took, we'd regard animals as rational, too, rather than instinctual/compulsive.
If you're arguing that it would "be more rational" for example for a species not to reproduce and simply die off then you're opening the term "rational" to have no tangible meaning; from the biological definition this is desirable.
Exactly: the reason is biological, not intellectual. Rationality doesn't even come into it. We know it doesn't, because the only reasons you can give are completely circular.
And far from diluting the meaning of the word, I'm actually the one protecting it here. If has no meaning if we use your definition, where things are rational simply because we desire to do them. It retains its meeting when our actions have the capacity to be either rational or irrational based on some standard. And that standard cannot be made up of the very compulsion we're appraising.
From a biological POV they are desirable, not from a "human consensus".
Sure it is. If we all desired something else, then by your logic that would be rational instead. And what reason could you give other than consensus to explain why some behavior is rational and moral, but aberrational behavior is irrational and immoral?
It's desirable because it has tangible benefits.
And if I ask you what "tangible benefits" means, you'll inevitably have to say some variation of "things we desire." Which means your last sentence is essentially "It's desirable because we desire it."
Something else that occurred to me:
Even "emotional rewards" (like volunteering to feed the homeless without receiving any pay in return) still provides tangible benefits (ex. the 'good fuzzy feeling' of helping someone is a chemical rush to the brain, and has many health benefits).
The idea behind a lot of religions is to do things which are irrational from a biological POV, sometimes even harmful in the case of more extreme religious sects (ex. Jehovah's Witnesses being against blood transfusions, or religious sects which shun medical care, even when their children die in the processes), hinging on the idea of receiving a reward for it in the afterlife - but since the is based just on blind trust that the religious leader "knew what he was talking about", not on tangible evidence, this is why it's deemed irrational.
This distinction doesn't really work. Leaving aside the erroneous suggestion that religious people are primarily motivated by heavenly reward (something atheists always think, but which bears little resemblance to how most believers think), how is this different from the speculative emotional reward you get from self-sacrifice? That's based in blind trust, too. Nobody really knows if just doing the right thing in one single instance is going to matter in the long run. Nobody really knows if their sacrifice will matter. In both cases you'd be getting an immediate emotional reward for a speculative benefit that will only manifest after you're gone.
If this fuzzy feeling makes something rational, then religion qualifies easily.
I addressed this awhile ago (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=1254428#post1254428) (it wasn't answered). I'll reproduce it here:
It sidesteps the question to just say "benefit" without explaining what you mean. Which benefits take priority, why, and why are your answers to those questions more rational than any other answer someone might give?
Basic biological desires take priority because of the tangible benefits they produce.
Bad behavior often provides tangible benefits, as well, up to and including emotional rewards.
In the long term it doesn't. I addressed this already - for example using cocaine provides a short-term reward but long term destruction. No one on their deathbed "wishes they had smoked more crack".
Most evidence also indicates that individuals who harm others for their own gain are unhappy in the long-term since they lack the emotional rewards of normal bonding with others, and are therefore depending on "short term rewards" of acquiring 'power' or materialism just to feel normal. There's no evidence which suggests that anti-social behavior produces long term social rewards other than a very short-sighted look (ex. just because a bank robber 'got away' doesn't mean that he's in any way happy in the long term, and most evidence suggests the opposite).
If a behavior did it provide long term rewards, it wouldn't be "bad". Unless "bad" is simply defined as "(specific religious book) says it is".
So? There's no logical principle which says that our base biological desires are governed by rational thought processes. If that were all it took, we'd regard animals as rational, too, rather than instinctual/compulsive.
Relative to their limited amounts of thought function, it is rational.
Exactly: the reason is biological, not intellectual. Rationality doesn't even come into it. We know it doesn't, because the only reasons you can give are completely circular.
All rationality hinges on the biological. We would say that drug addiction is bad or irrational because of the biological harm it causes. If using cocaine provided long term biological health, it wouldn't be bad just because "it's cocaine".
And far from diluting the meaning of the word, I'm actually the one protecting it here. If has no meaning if we use your definition, where things are rational simply because we desire to do them.
Not because we "desire" them, because of the long term cost/benefit ratio and tangible benefits which result. People 'desire' to take drugs if they're addicted, but that would be 'irrational'.
It retains its meeting when our actions have the capacity to be either rational or irrational based on some standard. And that standard cannot be made up of the very compulsion we're appraising.
It's not "made up" - that's what it is. It's defined by things which exist and which we can verify exist - there's nothing else to define it by without dilluting the word to mean "anything someone wants".
Which would mean that if a Jihadist "believes" Allah will reward him with virgins in paradise for bombing the infidels, that this is "rational".
Sure it is. If we all desired something else, then by your logic that would be rational instead.
Not at all - if we all had a basic biological drive for something with proven benefits which are long term and tangible, then yes it would be rational.
Just because "someone desires something' doesn't make it rational- only certain desires are rational or irrational.
And what reason could you give other than consensus to explain why some behavior is rational and moral, but aberrational behavior is irrational and immoral?
A better reason than "because the Koran/Bible/Book of Mormon/L Ron Hubbard" says so that's for sure.
And if I ask you what "tangible benefits" means, you'll inevitably have to say some variation of "things we desire." Which means your last sentence is essentially "It's desirable because we desire it."
Again, things we desire on a biological level which meet criteria for food, shelter, or purpose - and which provide tangible long term benefits to that ends meet.
Just because "someone desires something" doesn't mean it meets the the criteria of basic biological desires, which produce tangible long term rewards.
People have a desire to "have money" so they can provide for themselves - that doesn't mean that investing millions in gambling is "rational" simply because it's a way in which "some people" act out this desire.
This would go better if you wouldn't fragment each point quite so much. Try to combine them when you're going to give the same answer, please.
In the long term it doesn't.
You have literally no way of knowing this. We can safely assume that a society where everyone is constantly murdering everyone would not survive, but there are lots of other moral issues where the benefits of a given action are almost entirely speculative, or even ostensibly at odds with long-term interests.
For example, we have no idea if eugenics would be bad for the survival of the human race. Frankly, we have lots of reasons to think it would help. But it's still wrong.
Relative to their limited amounts of thought function, it is rational.
This is a horrendous mutation of the word "rational." To be rational is to be based in reason and logic; it's not a relative term, graded on a curve for thought function. Some creatures have reason and logic, and some don't. Insects, for example, do not, and therefore they are not rational, even though they exhibit the same basic biological drives that you've identified as establishing rationality.
Not because we "desire" them, because of the long term cost/benefit ratio and tangible benefits which result.
And just what makes long-term considerations more important than short-term ones? Why not just take a bunch of drugs and die happy? Why not put the immediate, tangible rewards above the long-term ones most of us will never see?
The only reason you can possibly give is the compulsive desire for survival. That's all this really is. You're trying to dress it up by stealing words like "rational" and "moral," but when you have to define them it turns out it's all just boring old "survival." The same impulse that every bat, bear or bug possesses just as much as we do.
It's defined by things which exist and which we can verify exist
Except you can't verify the long-term consequences of any behavior, let alone make an accurate appraisal of competing benefits. And since you can't, the distinction you're trying to draw between this and religion doesn't fly. Which means religion meets all the qualifications you've drawn up for rationality.
This would go better if you wouldn't fragment each point quite so much. Try to combine them when you're going to give the same answer, please.
You have literally no way of knowing this. We can safely assume that a society where everyone is constantly murdering everyone would not survive, but there are lots of other moral issues where the benefits of a given action are almost entirely speculative, or even ostensibly at odds with long-term interests.
For example, we have no idea if eugenics would be bad for the survival of the human race. Frankly, we have lots of reasons to think it would help.
But it's still wrong.
Eugenics might be acceptable in a very extreme situation it. Just a hypothetical sci-fi scenario - there was a disease which was rapidly spreading which had killed 90% of the earth's population, and would kill off the entire human race unless a govt genetically cloned people to acquire an immunity to it. In a situation that dire it might be acceptable, but that's such an extreme scenario that we don't have to worry about it for the time being..
You're also not disregarding all the potential greater long term consequences - such as the other abuses that giving the goverment that kind of power would result in (ex. in Saudi Arabia and authoritarian states there is "less crime", but on the whole would creating an authoritarian state be worth it?) Or the 'morale' effects on the population knowing that the govt could force the 'genetically inferior' to abort, etc. From what I see, the less authoritarian nations are overall, the higher quality of life - nations like the US and European countries have the highest standards of living versus countries like Saudi Arabia and North Korea where there might be "less crime" but more misery on the whole.
If you take an extreme position "just because", you could also take a "PETA" like position that it would be better off for the human race to die from disease rather than experiment on a lab rat. Most people think "killing is wrong", but understand that in extreme situations like major wars that it would be a necessary evil. And even still, the underlying reason we consider it wrong is because of the net overall consequences - not "just because it is".
This is a horrendous mutation of the word "rational." To be rational is to be based in reason and logic; it's not a relative term, graded on a curve for thought function. Some creatures have reason and logic, and some don't. Insects, for example, do not, and therefore they are not rational, even though they exhibit the same basic biological drives that you've identified as establishing rationality.
The higher level animals such as chimps have very primitive forms of our reason and logic. Relative to their mental capacity their actions are rational.
So why isn't it rational to take a bunch of drugs and die happy?
Because it doesn't make you "happy". "Pleasure" and happiness aren't the same thing.
I mean, you're going to die anyway. Why not experience as much short-term pleasure as possible right up until the point at which you die?
Because excessive short-term pleasure prevents long term pleasure, which in the long term makes the person less happy - drug addicts aren't "happy" - they need the drug just to "not feel miserable" and even then they never experience the same type of happiness that people who live healthy lives. Someone who lives on the street and prostitutes themselves just to get heroin isn't "living the life" - no one envies them just because they're "high all the time".
If it was that easy to "be happy" then no one would do anything other than just 'try to get high' - but the reason that people have actual passions and careers isn't "just because" - it's because of the tangible rewards it produces, which are better on the whole.
The only reason you can possibly give is the compulsive desire for survival. That's all this really is.
That's all that reality is. Religions are all about 'survival' too (ex. eternal life in heaven) - they just take a much riskier 'judgment call' on how to get there (ex. blind faith in a religious text)
After all this discussion I've basically narrowed down what I consider the difference between "religious beliefs" and secular beliefs. In a way you're right that everyone makes a "judgment call" about what the best decision is, and has no way over knowing for 100% certainty that "they're right".
But religious people are making much riskier judgment calls about what the 'right' course of action is - ex. they're basing their judgment calls off of blindly trusting that an author of a religious text had all the right answers, despite not being able to 'prove' it in any tangible way.
You're trying to dress it up by stealing words like "rational" and "moral," but when you have to define them it turns out it's all just boring old "survival." The same impulse that every bat, bear or bug possesses just as much as we do.
That's how 'moral' and rational are defined in our biology; things which cause harm to our survival and quality of life as individuals or as a species as a whole are what we consider irrational or immoral.
This is why a jihadist blowing up civilians would be considered "anti-social" behavior by the APA - though if the jihadist was "right" that Allah is real and wants us to this, it would be "moral" (if we just define "moral" by whatever a certain religion says it is).
Except you can't verify the long-term consequences of any behavior, let alone make an accurate appraisal of competing benefits.
You can't "verify" that a jihadist doesn't really get 70 virgins in paradise either.
Long term negative consequences of bad behaviors are verified in many studies. And there are no studies that long term bad behaviors produce positive benefits outside of the 'short term' pleasure or rewards. Nature seems to have its own karma system to keep bad behaviors in check even outside of social institutions like the criminal justice system.
One other thing that I'd touch on - it's not really just a matter of "religious vs non-religious" beliefs - it's really more of beliefs in which conclusions are drawn based on facts, versus beliefs which just "state the conclusion" and hold to it totally disregarding facts or tangible evidence.
E.X. PETA's belief that killing animals is "always wrong" might not be a "religious belief" since it doesn't involve the supernatural, but it's similar to religious beliefs since it's based more on blind acceptance that the belief is correct, rather than using tangible evidence to support the belief. And most people who are militant vegans would hold to that belief no matter what the evidence showed about benefits/consequences.
I'm not asking if you can construct an elaborate sci-fi hypothetical where eugenics might seem permissible. I'm saying there's no particularly good reason to think it isn't beneficial to long term survival right now. Certainly nothing that you can "verify," which was your own standard.
Explanations about "morale" don't really cut it, either, because that implies that it's perfectly moral to engage in eugenics, but we just haven't persuaded people of that fact yet. Is that what you think? That eugenics would be moral if most people simply didn't have a problem with it?
The higher level animals such as chimps have very primitive forms of our reason and logic. Relative to their mental capacity their actions are rational.
You're just straight-up not using the word "rational" correctly. It is not a relative term, like "tall." It's an objective term, like "alive." Something is rational if it's based in reason and logic, and if it doesn't, it's not.
And your definition doesn't just apply to chimps, anyway. Lower-level animals, and even insects, exhibit the same basic drives, but they don't exhibit reason.
That's all that reality is.
Exactly: this is your real position. You're dressing it up by calling it "morality" or saying it's "rational," and using high-minded phrases like "purpose," but that's just because it sounds more high-minded than simply saying "Survival is good." But that's what this boil down to. It's just a sub-rational instinct masquerading as a philosophy.
After all this discussion I've basically narrowed down what I consider the difference between "religious beliefs" and secular beliefs. In a way you're right that everyone makes a "judgment call" about what the best decision is, and has no way over knowing for 100% certainty that "they're right".
But religious people are making much riskier judgment calls about what the 'right' course of action is - ex. they're basing their judgment calls off of blindly trusting that an author of a religious text had all the right answers, despite not being able to 'prove' it in any tangible way.
This bears virtually no resemblance to actual religious thought. Nobody reads a holy text and just thinks "hey, this could be true." Huge swaths of theistic thought exist that don't rely on any holy text whatsoever, and involve nothing more than the nature of logic, our own conscience, and the basic facts of reality as we observe them.
And what's the "risk," exactly? That you don't get to sleep in on Sundays? All the "fuzzy feelings" you mention take place (and lead to lots of good behavior) even if they end up being based in nothing, and there are even more obvious, tangible benefits to the sense of community and purpose that religious people enjoy from their beliefs.
That's how 'moral' and rational are defined in our biology
No they're not. All that's defined in our biology is the desire to do these things. Nothing about that desire implies rationality.
It's pretty simple, man: rational means consisting of reason and logic. Biology is instinct/compulsion. Therefore, something we do merely because we are instinctually compelled to do it is not rational.
Long term negative consequences of bad behaviors are verified in many studies.
"Many studies" is a throwaway deflection. Which studies, and long-term on what scale? By your logic, longer-term is always better, and the really long-term effects of societal standards can't possibly be encompassed by modern studies.
And there are no studies that long term bad behaviors produce positive benefits outside of the 'short term' pleasure or rewards.
See what you did here? You just tried to flip the burden of proof. You went from saying we could "verify" the effects to just saying there were no studies that proved otherwise. Which of course there wouldn't be, because the timescale we're talking about it is far too long.
Nature seems to have its own karma system to keep bad behaviors in check even outside of social institutions like the criminal justice system.
We sure do--and it's manifested itself overwhelmingly in religion. Which highlights another contradiction: on one hand you exalt the things we've evolved to believe as self-justifyingly rational. But on the other hand you try to denigrate religion, even though it's so widespread that there's no serious way to pretend we haven't evolved to desire it, as well. So which is it?
I'm not asking if you can construct an elaborate sci-fi hypothetical where eugenics might seem permissible. I'm saying there's no particularly good reason to think it isn't beneficial to long term survival right now. Certainly nothing that you can "verify," which was your own standard.
Explanations about "morale" don't really cut it, either, because that implies that it's perfectly moral to engage in eugenics, but we just haven't persuaded people of that fact yet. Is that what you think? That eugenics would be moral if most people simply didn't have a problem with it?
Saying "is eugenics" moral? Would be like saying "is war moral?"
I'd say aggressive war just to steal another nation's resource isn't moral, but defensive war (such as against the Nazis) is.
So if you say is "eugenics" bad 100% of the time I'd say no, but eugenics in situations where it's actually been practiced in modern times (ex. Nazi eugenics) - I'd say yes.
You're just straight-up not using the word "rational" correctly. It is not a relative term, like "tall." It's an objective term, like "alive." Something is rational if it's based in reason and logic, and if it doesn't, it's not.
And your definition doesn't just apply to chimps, anyway. Lower-level animals, and even insects, exhibit the same basic drives, but they don't exhibit reason.
The basis for our reason is on biological drives and the benefits they produce. In animals with no reason whatsoever the term 'rational' wouldn't cut it - but it's deemed beneficial in tangible terms.
In humans we tend to base 'rational' off of good risk assessment - that's why we'd say investing in stocks with good return rate is a 'rational choice', but investing in shady stocks is 'irrational' - but the motive for doing so to begin with is still a basic drive (ex. to acquire money to provide for oneself).
Exactly: this is your real position. You're dressing it up by calling it "morality" or saying it's "rational," and using high-minded phrases like "purpose," but that's just because it sounds more high-minded than simply saying "Survival is good." But that's what this boil down to. It's just a sub-rational instinct masquerading as a philosophy.
Like it or not, this instinct is what all philosophy and morals are based on.
This bears virtually no resemblance to actual religious thought. Nobody reads a holy text and just thinks "hey, this could be true." Huge swaths of theistic thought exist that don't rely on any holy text whatsoever, and involve nothing more than the nature of logic, our own conscience, and the basic facts of reality as we observe them.
If you're talking about generic beliefs in a God that's a different ballpark - believing in "a creator" is completely different than believing in a specific God from a specific religious texts, or a specific moral commandment such as "having to pray 5 times a day" to go to heaven.
Or believing things such as that the universe was literally created in 6 days even when this completely conflicts with science.
And what's the "risk," exactly? That you don't get to sleep in on Sundays?
Not sure. If I were a woman living in Saudi Arabia, why would I want to wear a burka and be denied basic human rights - or be married off at age 10 just on the blind belief that "this is what Allah" wants?
Or even a Catholic in a Western country - why would I want to spend my free time worrying that I might wind up in hell if I had some 'mortal sins' I forgot to confess? Why would I want to believe I was 'mortally sinning' against a God which I just 'blindly believe' exists for using a condom when I have sex with my wife?
You seem to think that all religious people are sensible, but truth is there are lots of religious groups and cults (even in Western countries) which are very controlling and abusive, and people blindly accept it because they place blind trust that the religion or group is "right".
All the "fuzzy feelings" you mention take place (and lead to lots of good behavior) even if they end up being based in nothing, and there are even more obvious, tangible benefits to the sense of community and purpose that religious people enjoy from their beliefs.
The sense of community might be beneficial - this doesn't mean someone has to join a specific religion just to enjoy it either.
No they're not. All that's defined in our biology is the desire to do these things. Nothing about that desire implies rationality.
It's pretty simple, man: rational means consisting of reason and logic. Biology is instinct/compulsion. Therefore, something we do merely because we are instinctually compelled to do it is not rational.
The decisions we make all have their basis in these basic drives and impulses. The 'rational/irrational' part is more about how effective they are at actually satisfying them in productive ways.
"Many studies" is a throwaway deflection. Which studies, and long-term on what scale? By your logic, longer-term is always better, and the really long-term effects of societal standards can't possibly be encompassed by modern studies.
See what you did here? You just tried to flip the burden of proof. You went from saying we could "verify" the effects to just saying there were no studies that proved otherwise. Which of course there wouldn't be, because the timescale we're talking about it is far too long.
You made the claim that 'bad behavior leads to good results' - other than short term gratification there's not a lot of evidence to suggest this, and much to dispel it.
I used examples such as how standards of living are higher in countries with less authoritarian govts than in countries like China and North Korea with eugenical policies. Or how drug addicts end up becoming deficient in 'natural' chemical highs due to the drug abuse, and end up being a 'slave' to the drug just to get the highs that a non-addict can achieve naturally.
We sure do--and it's manifested itself overwhelmingly in religion. Which highlights another contradiction: on one hand you exalt the things we've evolved to believe as self-justifyingly rational. But on the other hand you try to denigrate religion, even though it's so widespread that there's no serious way to pretend we haven't evolved to desire it, as well. So which is it?
We don't desire "religion" specifically - we desire an understanding and purpose of our lives - religion is 'one way' in which people try to achieve this.
I'm not sure why you think this invalidates any question I'm asking. Not only is this unrelated, but the arguments I've been making assume it's an organic process!
You say you have no obligation to answer because you've "made no claim." So again I ask: do you claim your morality is rational? It's a simple question that is in no way predicated on you accepting a divine source for morality.
If you answer yes, then the "made no claim" deflection is invalid. If you answer no, then my follow-up question was/is: why do you demand rationality of religion when you're perfectly willing to adopt a non-rational claim in your own worldview?
If irrational thoughts are also organic, then that means being organic has nothing to do with whether or not a thought is rational. So when I ask you what rational basis there is for something, pointing out that it is an organic process doesn't really have anything to do with it.
It's really very simple: You made a claim so the burden's on you. While I needn't say a thing nor be expected to, I have made the observation that it's biological and appears evolutionary which some would see as problematic for your position.
It's really very simple: You made a claim so the burden's on you.
For the claims *I* make, sure. But I've been asking you about yours. I've been quoting them back to you. Two, in particular, contradict one another, and in a way that has literally nothing to do with any claim I've made. It's a mystery why you're conflating the two, or why you think this somehow resolves these conflicting statements.
While I needn't say a thing nor be expected to, I have made the observation that it's biological and appears evolutionary which some would see as problematic for your position.
Okay, but the question was: do you claim your morality is rational?
You don't have to answer, but refusing to do so is pretty much the argumentative equivalent of taking the fifth.
For the claims *I* make, sure. But I've been asking you about yours. I've been quoting them back to you. Two, in particular, contradict one another, and in a way that has literally nothing to do with any claim I've made. It's a mystery why you're conflating the two, or why you think this somehow resolves these conflicting statements.
Okay, but the question was: do you claim your morality is rational?
You don't have to answer, but refusing to do so is pretty much the argumentative equivalent of taking the fifth.
Taking the fifth? Am I being charged with something? Why don't you just make your case?
I am making my case. And you're just straight up refusing to answer simple questions at this point.
I am making my case. And you're just straight up refusing to answer simple questions at this point.
Making a case doesn't require questions to be asked. It requires proof be offered.
They were phrased as questions as a courtesy, to allow you to explain them. But if you'd rather I phrase them as statements, okay: you're making contradictory claims. Your statements clearly show that you hold religion to a different intellectual standard than your own beliefs.
Saying "is eugenics" moral? Would be like saying "is war moral?"
I took it for granted that you'd understand "eugenics" as shorthand, but since not, I'll be more specific: is it moral to eliminate (or even sterilize) physically or intellectually inferior people to ensure a higher average gene pool quality going forward, given that this would ostensibly make the human race stronger and therefore aid in our long-term survival?
In animals with no reason whatsoever the term 'rational' wouldn't cut it - but it's deemed beneficial in tangible terms.
Okay, great, so we agree: rationality cannot be synonymous with base instincts, because non-rational creatures have them, too. So that definition is unworkable. Try another?
Like it or not, this instinct is what all philosophy and morals are based on.
Good grief, no it isn't. Classical philosophy does not generally (let alone always) treat survival as the ultimate good, and definitely not as the source of all reason. And obviously almost zero theology does. If you think this, I politely suggest that you read a lot more philosophy.
If you're talking about generic beliefs in a God that's a different ballpark - believing in "a creator" is completely different than believing in a specific God from a specific religious texts
And believing in a specific God encompasses those "generic beliefs." A Christian is also a theist, ergo the "generic beliefs in a God" are part of the reason for the whole of their beliefs. So your assessment of risk, describing it as "blind faith" in a "holy text," doesn't describe the actual evidence that leads to belief.
Or even a Catholic in a Western country - why would I want to spend my free time worrying that I might wind up in hell if I had some 'mortal sins' I forgot to confess?
Much better to spend your free time arguing with Catholics, right?
The sense of community might be beneficial - this doesn't mean someone has to join a specific religion just to enjoy it either.
Doesn't matter: the point is that they acquire the same kind of "tangible benefits" that you think are self-justifyingly rational regardless of the existence of an afterlife (which isn't really any less verifiable than the very long-term effects of any morally controversial policy today, anyway). So, based on your own definition of rationality, religion is rational.
The basis for our reason is on biological drives and the benefits they produce.
The decisions we make all have their basis in these basic drives and impulses.
We're arguing about whether or not biology is the basis for our reason, and/or whether or not that's a valid basis. So it really means nothing to simply say they are, over and over, when I ask you something about the implications of that claim.
I used examples such as how standards of living are higher in countries with less authoritarian govts than in countries like China and North Korea with eugenical policies.
So now it's standard of living that's our barometer, rather than survival?
We don't desire "religion" specifically - we desire an understanding and purpose of our lives - religion is 'one way' in which people try to achieve this.
Based on what? This is just speculation. But against that speculation, we can put the whole of human history, where our desires have consistently manifested themselves religiously, and not just in some hazy notion of "purpose."
You can't have it both ways. "Evolutionary purpose" can't be a magic phrase that excuses circular arguments and automatically justifies everything we do when you want it to be, but then something you can shrug off and speculate about when religion is involved.
They were phrased as questions as a courtesy, to allow you to explain them. But if you'd rather I phrase them as statements, okay: you're making contradictory claims. Your statements clearly show that you hold religion to a different intellectual standard than your own beliefs.
This is your case for morality being divine? And what contradictory claims have I made?
I have no dog in this race, and think everyone involved has brought up some interesting points. Still i'm shocked that Yoda needs to straight up define Eugenics, just to get a straight answer to whether Eugenics is moral or not from 90sAce. Still i suspect that wont help him get one.
Monkeypunch
02-25-15, 01:00 AM
If you take an extreme position "just because", you could also take a "PETA" like position that it would be better off for the human race to die from disease rather than experiment on a lab rat.
Totally off topic but I can't let you get away with that ridiculous comment. Being for animal rights does not make one anti-humanity. That's just stupid. :D
This is your case for morality being divine?
Nope, it's my case for your alternative being invalid. And why do you think you can avoid explaining something by unilaterally declaring that something else is the only acceptable topic?
And what contradictory claims have I made?
I've produced these frequently and recently, so it kinda feels like you're just running me around. But alright, one more time:
In terms of religion, you can choose to take that proverbial leap of faith, but why believe and devote yourself to something that may be mistaken?
I don't see a problem with saying we don't know at the moment, which isn't to say there aren't theories some find convincing.
Also, another contradiction is unavoidable if and when you answer the question (which I've asked point blank a couple of times) "do you claim your morality is rational?" Both "yes" and "no" conflict with other arguments you've made.
I took it for granted that you'd understand "eugenics" as shorthand, but since not, I'll be more specific: is it moral to eliminate (or even sterilize) physically or intellectually inferior people to ensure a higher average gene pool quality going forward, given that this would ostensibly make the human race stronger and therefore aid in our long-term survival?
That would be survival of 'some' at the expense of others.. 'Survival' takes into account all individuals' rights - not just the 'rights' of some at the expense of others, except in extreme situations (ex. if the allies had surrendered to the Nazi Germans, more Germans may have lived, but more Jews and individuals deemed racially inferior may have been exterminated).
Good grief, no it isn't. Classical philosophy does not generally (let alone always) treat survival as the ultimate good, and definitely not as the source of all reason. And obviously almost zero theology does. If you think this, I politely suggest that you read a lot more philosophy.
It treats finding a 'purpose' or 'meaning' in life as the purpose - and regardless of the 'meaning' the evolutionary basis is the same - and is routed in our evolutionary instinct to survive and 'create a legacy', just as much as any animal's desire to reproduce is despite 'not knowing' why they do it.
Totally off topic but I can't let you get away with that ridiculous comment. Being for animal rights does not make one anti-humanity. That's just stupid. :D
Being so to an extreme degree is - for example preferring that the entire human race die off from diseases rather than experiment on a lab rat would be an example.
Nope, it's my case for your alternative being invalid. And why do you think you can avoid explaining something by unilaterally declaring that something else is the only acceptable topic?
I've produced these frequently and recently, so it kinda feels like you're just running me around. But alright, one more time:
Also, another contradiction is unavoidable if and when you answer the question (which I've asked point blank a couple of times) "do you claim your morality is rational?" Both "yes" and "no" conflict with other arguments you've made.
Whether I contradicted myself or not (I don't see where I did) is irrelevant to your argument, nor, as I said before, do I need to say anything. What you've really been attempting to do (you believe ultimately that everything is divinely based) is prove the existence of the divine through the lack of another explanation for morality (not (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/magazine/13Psychology-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0) quite (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/09/magazine/09babies-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&) true incidentally), a completely fallacious form of reasoning. As I've already pointed out, 175 years ago you would've used the same logic for biodiversity. In fact, our history is littered with appeals to the divine for all sorts of things that couldn't be explained at the time--Newton (http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/universe/211420/the-perimeter-of-ignorance) and the stability of the planets being a notable example. I also find it strange you apparently think everything about human nature, the brain, the subconscious and everything else for that matter, considering your line of argument, should be understood at this point in time. Moreover, the argument you've tried to marshal equating following my morality to following religious beliefs is not only a different argument, it's inapt and irrelevant to whether there's evidence for the supernatural.
Where did I say I was going to prove the existence of the divine to you? Please show me. I'm fairly certain I did no such thing, even though you might prefer that I did because it would be easier to contend with than what I'm actually saying.
What I have claimed (among other things; you don't get to unilaterally declare that one part of the argument is the "real" argument and all others can be ignored when they become inconvenient) is that the alternative you've advanced is contradictory. And this claim does, in turn, become a piece of evidence in considering that larger question, anyway.
You say you don't see the contradiction, but it's plain as day: in one quote you say believers should not risk following a code of conduct they can't be sure is based in anything, and in the next you admit you don't know if yours is. So which is it? Is it okay to base your behavior and beliefs on things you can't verify, or not?
Vague hypotheticals about things we may one day learn about the brain don't really change this question, either. Without any evidence to this effect, simply hoping it happens is just blind faith, no more rational or empirical than any religion. Moreover, you've already agreed (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=1255838#post1255838) that science can't prove something is moral, anyway.
Monkeypunch
02-26-15, 12:46 AM
Being so to an extreme degree is - for example preferring that the entire human race die off from diseases rather than experiment on a lab rat would be an example.
I agree that is an extreme view, but you attributed this view to PETA, which isn't an accurate portrayal of their beliefs. Thus I called you on it.
I agree that is an extreme view, but you attributed this view to PETA, which isn't an accurate portrayal of their beliefs. Thus I called you on it.
I'm not sure if that's 'exactly' they're view, but PETA's widely considered an extremist group with extremist tactics; and has even donated money in legal defense of eco-terrorists on trial.
Moreover, you've already agreed (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=1255838#post1255838) that science can't prove something is moral, anyway.
But the idea of something being "moral" is that it provides some positive benefit to people on the whole - so the only way to "test" if something is moral would be to use benefits which can be verified in nature through observation of cause and effect (aka "science").
When you bring "supernatural" into play then it's pure speculation since we have no way of "verifying" anything beyond which can be tested with natural laws.
Where did I say I was going to prove the existence of the divine to you? Please show me. I'm fairly certain I did no such thing, even though you might prefer that I did because it would be easier to contend with than what I'm actually saying.
What I have claimed (among other things; you don't get to unilaterally declare that one part of the argument is the "real" argument and all others can be ignored when they become inconvenient) is that the alternative you've advanced is contradictory. And this claim does, in turn, become a piece of evidence in considering that larger question, anyway.
You say you don't see the contradiction, but it's plain as day: in one quote you say believers should not risk following a code of conduct they can't be sure is based in anything, and in the next you admit you don't know if yours is. So which is it? Is it okay to base your behavior and beliefs on things you can't verify, or not?
Vague hypotheticals about things we may one day learn about the brain don't really change this question, either. Without any evidence to this effect, simply hoping it happens is just blind faith, no more rational or empirical than any religion. Moreover, you've already agreed (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=1255838#post1255838) that science can't prove something is moral, anyway.
First, you are trying to prove the divine through morality and it's classic theistic apologetics. Second, I don't care about what believers risk or what they follow, the issue is whether morality is evidence of the divine. Third, I have given you a basis for morality several times. Fourth, its not a question of when we'll know something, its a question of whether some unproven assertion is true simply because another hasn't been given. Finally, proving something as objectively moral is really besides the point; it's what we consider to be right and wrong and why.
First, you are trying to prove the divine through morality and it's classic theistic apologetics. Second, I don't care about what believers risk or what they follow, the issue is whether morality is evidence of the divine. Third, I have given you a basis for morality several times. Fourth, its not a question of when we'll know something, its a question of whether some unproven assertion is true simply because another hasn't been given. Finally, proving something as objectively moral is really besides the point; it's what we consider to be right and wrong and why.
First, trying to make a case for something and claiming I can prove something are different things, a distinction I think you understand just fine. Second, you specifically questioned why believers would follow a code they couldn't verify, so the question is obviously fair, and a direct response to your own words. Third, the "basis for morality" you've given is merely about the physical impulses; it has nothing to do with rational justification. And fourth, I never suggested that, if your worldview is contradictory, mine automatically becomes proven.
And fifth (my own addendum), even if I had made the claim you're saying, it still wouldn't follow that any argument not directly about that becomes invalid or meaningless. It's hard not to see all this as a slightly obfuscated version of "Hey! Look over there!"
'Survival' takes into account all individuals' rights - not just the 'rights' of some at the expense of others
What a neat trick: any word you use is accurate because, when I point out the ways in which it isn't accurate, you just expand the definition to include that.
You're not actually arguing that any of this is really moral or rational--you're just redefining those words to include more things than they have historically meant. This is a common rhetorical trick: by redefining words like "moral", "rational", or "meaning", you get to keep the positive connotations these words have, even though those connotations come from a definition of the word you're not using.
"Survival," for example, just means survival. It doesn't take individual rights into account. You've invented this exception out of thin air. It applies only insofar as it leads to more survival. And I can't see any good reason to think that sterilizing physically or intellectually disabled people won't aid in our long-term survival. But all reasonable people agree it's wrong anyway. Do you think it's wrong, yes or no?
It treats finding a 'purpose' or 'meaning' in life as the purpose
I seriously have no idea what you're talking about. What philosophy? Be specific. And remember that you claimed that all philosophy thinks reason is based in biology, which is just straight-up false.
and regardless of the 'meaning' the evolutionary basis is the same - and is routed in our evolutionary instinct to survive and 'create a legacy', just as much as any animal's desire to reproduce is despite 'not knowing' why they do it.
Exactly, it's rooted in instinct. Instinct is a sub-rational process.
What a neat trick: any word you use is accurate because, when I point out the ways in which it isn't accurate, you just expand the definition to include that.
You're not actually arguing that any of this is really moral or rational--you're just redefining those words to include more things than they have historically meant
This is a common rhetorical trick: by redefining words like "moral", "rational", or "meaning", you get to keep the positive connotations these words have, even though those connotations come from a definition of the word you're not using.
But to a jihadist killing infidels is 'moral' - historically "moral" often refer to simply conforming to whatever 'moral code' someone in power had unilaterally decreed people should do, even if said behavior was actually immoral if based on definitions of actual human rights, as opposed to whatever definition a mob or group in power had concocted.
Nevertheless the concept behind groups inventing codes of 'morals' (however primitive they were) was the idea that they provided some type of social benefit on the whole - they were telling people to do this things "just for the hell of it".
"Survival," for example, just means survival.
Survival in human terms refers to more than mere material survival, it refers to human's desire to create a positive legacy as well.
It doesn't take individual rights into account.
Collective versus individual survival. As a rule collective survival would only come into account in dire situations, such as in a major war where killing the opposing army was deemed necessary evil, despite the default premise that killing people is wrong.
You've invented this exception out of thin air. It applies only insofar as it leads to more survival. And I can't see any good reason to think that sterilizing physically or intellectually disabled people won't aid in our long-term survival.
What about theirsurvival? You're referring simply to 'collective survival'. Saying it would aid "our" survival is excluding them - it would inhibit their personal survival and quality of life
But all reasonable people agree it's wrong anyway. Do you think it's wrong, yes or no?
Generally yes - in some extreme sci-fi situation that I mentioned I'd be fine with it, but in actual situations which occur in modern times I think it's wrong.
Even then it's only wrong because I'd say the net costs (including the costs to the individuals) outweigh the benefits (despite you only thinking of some immediate genetic benefits, and not all the consequences that come with it)- it's not wrong "just because".
Ex. The slight genetic benefit might receive wouldn't override the greater harm or trauma of forcing a person to be sterilized for example.
I seriously have no idea what you're talking about. What philosophy? Be specific. And remember that you claimed that all philosophy thinks reason is based in biology, which is just straight-up false.
A lot of philosophy pre-dated modern biology - however the 1 key component which binds all philosophy is a desire to understand or have meaning for existence - the route of this desire is based in biology, whether the philosopher realized it 1000s of years ago or not.
Exactly, it's rooted in instinct. Instinct is a sub-rational process.
Instinct is the basis for rational processes - all desires and things who seek to achieve through rational process have their basis in the same evolutionary instincts whether we realize it or not.
The reason people seek out the meaning of life has the basis in the same evolutionary drive that makes animals want to reproduce.
But to a jihadist killing infidels is 'moral' - historically "moral" often refer to simply conforming to whatever 'moral code' someone in power had unilaterally decreed people should do, even if said behavior was actually immoral if based on definitions of actual human rights, as opposed to whatever definition a mob or group in power had concocted.
You can't appeal to what a word has historically meant in the process of giving it a completely ahistorical definition. If you think the historical definition matters (and it does), that's not gonna help you out, because it has virtually never been treated as synonymous with instinct.
The point, however (which you actually aren't responding to at all) is that you're not defending the idea that these words describe secularity; you're just redefining them until they do. You're not lifting secularity up, you're pulling the words down. Kind of like redefining "charismatic" so it applies to boring people.
Collective versus individual survival. As a rule collective survival would only come into account in dire situations
Except we see that it doesn't. When asked to explain altruistic behavior, you say it aids our long-term, collective survival. By itself, that makes some sense. But when you're stuck explaining why we shouldn't eliminate and/or sterilize people, you say that collective survival only kicks in in "dire situations." Yet there are many examples of good behavior that takes place without our situation being dire, and people act against their own pure self interest in situations where indulging it clearly would not be dire for the species. So which is it?
What about theirsurvival? You're referring simply to 'collective survival'. Saying it would aid "our" survival is excluding them - it would inhibit their personal survival and quality of life
And with this, the self-immolation is complete.
You started off proclaiming the superiority of secular morality because it was based in measurable, verifiable things, like survival. But in order to avoid justifying morally abhorrent things in the name of survival, you started adding arbitrary, ad hoc exceptions to make it look more like conventional morality. But now, there's no longer any overarching, verifiable principle governing this standard, which was supposed to be the reason it was superior in the first place.
This is what pretty much always happens when people try to construct a secular morality. They either construct something heinous and Darwinian, because it prioritizes something brutal like survival, or else it carves out lots of unverifiable, wishy-washy exceptions, which removes the empirical nature that's supposed to be its reason for existing in the first place.
Even then it's only wrong because I'd say the net costs (including the costs to the individuals) outweigh the benefits (despite you only thinking of some immediate genetic benefits, and not all the consequences that come with it)- it's not wrong "just because".
Why including the costs to the individuals? Explain individual rights in a secular worldview, please. There's a reason human rights have historically been based in God: because if they're not God-given, they are given by Man. And if they are given by Man, they can be taken away by Man.
This is the whole problem with secular morality: when you choose an overarching goal, all other considerations must subsume themselves to it. So if your goal is survival of the species, then any individual rights which conflict with it are discardable. And rights that can be discarded aren't rights at all, by definition.
You can't appeal to what a word has historically meant in the process of giving it a completely ahistorical definition. If you think the historical definition matters (and it does), that's not gonna help you out, because it has virtually never been treated as synonymous with instinct.
Thousands of years before modern biology existed?
The point, however (which you actually aren't responding to at all) is that you're not defending the idea that these words describe secularity; you're just redefining them until they do. You're not lifting secularity up, you're pulling the words down. Kind of like redefining "charismatic" so it applies to boring people.
They're defined by things which are observable in nature; cause and effect - versus purely speculative effects (ex. in the 'afterlife') - that's the key difference.
Except we see that it doesn't. When asked to explain altruistic behavior, you say it aids our long-term, collective survival. By itself, that makes some sense. But when you're stuck explaining why we shouldn't eliminate and/or sterilize people, you say that collective survival only kicks in in "dire situations." Yet there are many examples of good behavior that takes place without our situation being dire, and people act against their own pure self interest in situations where indulging it clearly would not be dire for the species. So which is it?
Altruistic behavior which doesn't harm some for the greater good of the whole wouldn't be limited to dire situations - the collective survival in which some are harmed for the greater good (ex. in a war) would be reserved for dire situations - someone simply donating their money to charity isn't harming anyone by doing so.
Also it's been mentioned that altrusitic behavior has a self-benefit, in the provision of pleasure chemicals to the brain, and the creation of a feeling of purpose and meaning.
And with this, the self-immolation is complete.
You started off proclaiming the superiority of secular morality because it was based in measurable, verifiable things, like survival.
That is what makes it superior - it's based on the verifiable, not just 'guessing' that some act with verifiable destructive results (like Jihad) has some reward in the afterlife which can't be verified.
But in order to avoid justifying morally abhorrent things in the name of survival, you started adding arbitrary, ad hoc exceptions to make it look more like conventional morality.
That's why cost/benefit comes into play - extreme ideologies such as "killing people is always wrong" if taken literally would mean that the Allies should have just surrendered to the Nazis, or that a person who's family is threatened by an armed home invader should just surrender himself (even if his family is murdered in the process).
It's not purely arbitrary, it's based on an analysis of overall cost/benefit. The 'eugenics' scenario you mentioned obviously didn't take into account the cost to the individuals who are being sterilized - the rights of all individuals come into play here.
But now, there's no longer any overarching, verifiable principle governing this standard, which was supposed to be the reason it was superior in the first place.
The verifiable principle is cost/benefit analysis - which is why it is superior since it deals with actual cost/benefit.
This is what pretty much always happens when people try to construct a secular morality. They either construct something heinous and Darwinian, because it prioritizes something brutal like survival,
"Survival" and legacy isn't brutal - everything which humans have constructed, such as the Pyramids, the Washington Monument - all music, film, art - is an example of humans striving for purpose and survival of their legacy.
or else it carves out lots of unverifiable, wishy-washy exceptions, which removes the empirical nature that's supposed to be its reason for existing in the first place.
By the same standard then, "killing is wrong" (except in self-defense or war) is also wishy washy. The only 'non-wishy washy' standard would be killing is always wrong (ex. American soldiers killing British invaders in the War of 1812 is wrong), or killing is always right (ex. nothing is wrong with what Ted Bundy and Jeffery Dahmer did).
Why including the costs to the individuals? Explain individual rights in a secular worldview, please.
Cost/benefit analysis - not to mention the plenty of studies showing that predatory behavior on others leads to unhappiness, statistics showing that authoritarian regimes have lower quality of life, etc. Coincidence or not most evidence seems to coincide with this.
Who'd want to live in a country like North Korea where everyone is 'equally miserable'?
There's a reason human rights have historically been based in God: because if they're not God-given, they are given by Man.
No, they're simply given by Man claiming to speak for God. The difference being is that these morals are based on blind trust that this "one man/men" had all the right answers, despite not being able to prove it in any way.
The fact that people think this way is the reason that authoritarian regimes such as Saudi Arabia exist - because verifiable facts about the harm these regimes cause don't matter if people blindly trust that this is "what God wants".
And if they are given by Man, they can be taken away by Man.
The cost/benefit cannot be taken away. Rights given by (men claiming to speak for) God, can be taken away by a (man claiming to speak for a) Greater God. As would happen if hypothetically, everyone in the US converted to radical Islam
This is the whole problem with secular morality: when you choose an overarching goal, all other considerations must subsume themselves to it. So if your goal is survival of the species, then any individual rights which conflict with it are discardable.
Survival of the individual is actually more significant than survival of the species bar dire exceptions - even most animal species are not 100% altruistic - ex. the 'alpha males' don't share their mates with the lesser males in the name of altruism - competition and individual success are important parts of survival.
Other than in dire situations, denying individual rights is always harmful to human 'survival', since it goes beyond mere material food, shelter, and reproduction like in animals - humans' 'survival' includes survival of their legacy (which in lesser animals is only through reproduction) - in humans this includes creativity, ambition and expression are the primary way in which humans' legacy survives - something which is denied in authoritarian regimes except for those in power.
And rights that can be discarded aren't rights at all, by definition.
Regardless of what you "call it" it doesn't change what it is - saying "it's a right given by God" doesn't make it true - essentially you're just saying people should lie to themselves because this supposedly produces a 'better' result of consistency.
Someone like Hitler could just as well say "White supremacy over the lesser races is a right granted to us by God" - how would you "prove him wrong" - and how would someone with that view attempt to convince others that "it is true" without being able to prove or test it in any way? By expecting naive people to just blindly trust him without question?
The whole reason America exists is because people didn't just blindly trust that someone had the right or authority to 'speak to God' - if they had then the Founders would have just been Tories and accepted King George as their "God appointed monarch" - I can also guarantee you that the founders came up with the Bill of Rights based on their overall consideration of the cost and benefits and how it produced the better quality of life - they didn't just make it up on a whim like some 'prophet' (ex. Muhammed, Joseph Smith, etc) because they thought God 'told them this'.
Dude, stop flooding the zone with these needless fragmentations. At one point in that post you actually respond to me relaying something you said to say the exact same thing again. That's absurd. I dunno if this is designed to tire people out or if it's just done compulsively, but for goodness' sake, reign it in.
Thousands of years before modern biology existed?
We didn't need "modern biology" to notice the existence of instincts, so the idea that philosophers (or people at large) would've redefined this term under different circumstances makes zero sense.
And you don't get to use idiosyncratic definitions of words based on your own historical linguistic fan fiction. That's not what the word has meant historically, ergo you can't appeal to historical definitions to make your case without simultaneously conceding the point.
Altruistic behavior which doesn't harm some for the greater good of the whole wouldn't be limited to dire situations - the collective survival in which some are harmed for the greater good (ex. in a war) would be reserved for dire situations - someone simply donating their money to charity isn't harming anyone by doing so.
Add another ad hoc exception to the pile:
"It's survival."
"What about eugenics?"
"It's survival plus quality of life."
"Which takes priority?"
"It's survival plus quality of life, unless in dire circumstances."
"What about altruism?"
"It's survival plus quality of life, unless in dire circumstances, except if it's not harmful."
Just like the unilateral redefinition of words, this is just more made-up rules. You haven't presented any actual evidence that this is how biology works, just random hypotheticals. Every time I question these standards, you add another layer, apparently confusing definitions with arguments. As if, if you can construct a convoluted set of principles that theoretically explain conventional morality, this is somehow the same as making a logical case for it actually being true.
Also it's been mentioned that altrusitic behavior has a self-benefit, in the provision of pleasure chemicals to the brain, and the creation of a feeling of purpose and meaning.
As I mentioned earlier (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=1261146#post1261146) (you didn't respond to it), so does religion.
Are you noticing a pattern here? You end up having to expand the verifiable standard until it isn't verifiable any more, and you end up having to expand benefits until you've accidentally left room for religion again. The process of defending each position ends up stepping all over its original claim.
It's not purely arbitrary, it's based on an analysis of overall cost/benefit. The 'eugenics' scenario you mentioned obviously didn't take into account the cost to the individuals who are being sterilized - the rights of all individuals come into play here.
And why should it take the cost to them into account? The reason "survival" makes some sense as a standard is because a species that doesn't prioritize it won't survive, so anything species still hanging around is bound to prioritize it.
But there's no mechanism to preserve "quality of life" or "individual rights." Those things would be preserved only insofar as they contributed to survival. Which means raw, brutal, technical survival (not the made-up definition where you toss in quality of life) still takes precedence. Which means, when technical survival conflicts with quality of life, you can't just carve out an exception, because that's not how the causality flows. The traits would remain only by contributing to that survival, not by undermining it.
The verifiable principle is cost/benefit analysis - which is why it is superior since it deals with actual cost/benefit.
This is so confused I barely know where to begin. Cost/benefit analysis is not a "verifiable principle." It's not even a principle at all. It's a way to measure things.
A "verifiable principle" is something you can verify and measure. For example, you can measure survival. You can (at least theoretically) measure the effects of behavior and say that X leads to more survival and Y leads to less. That would be the cost/benefit analysis of survival.
"Quality of life," on the other hand, is not verifiable. It is not a concrete, demonstrable fact. It is highly subjective. Therefore, once you try to expand "survival" to include it, your standard is no longer verifiable, even though being verifiable is why the standard was supposed to be superior in the first place.
The cost/benefit cannot be taken away.
This is borderline incoherent (see above), but I'll respond anyway: sure it can, because you've weakened your logical/verifiable standard of benefits to include non-empirical things like "quality of life," which aren't measurable and contain a major degree of subjectivity. Therefore, if someone else has a different definition of "quality of life," you no longer have a logically compulsive argument the way you would if you were arguing about something quantifiable, like survival.
Regardless of what you "call it" it doesn't change what it is - saying "it's a right given by God" doesn't make it true ...
Someone like Hitler could just as well say "White supremacy over the lesser races is a right granted to us by God" - how would you "prove him wrong" - and how would someone with that view attempt to convince others that "it is true" without being able to prove or test it in any way? By expecting naive people to just blindly trust him without question?
No, and the fact that you're asking this tells me you're not following the argument. The claim is not that saying "our rights come from God" magically makes it so, or that it becomes impossible to take these rights away. Any assertion of rights can be denied with force. But rights that are in the service of a verifiable principle like survival don't even need force: they just need to demonstrate that something is no longer useful for survival. That's the difference.
You can't call something a "right" unless it is self-evident and inalienable (that's why the Declaration of Independence says "We hold these truths to be self-evident"). If the "right" exists in the service of some other goal (IE: maximizing survival), then it can logically (without having to appeal to force) be taken away in service of that goal if necessary, and it is therefore not a right.
So you're quite right: regardless of what you call it, it doesn't change what it is. So what you call "human rights" in service of survival are not actually rights, but only a means to that end.
First, trying to make a case for something and claiming I can prove something are different things, a distinction I think you understand just fine. Second, you specifically questioned why believers would follow a code they couldn't verify, so the question is obviously fair, and a direct response to your own words. Third, the "basis for morality" you've given is merely about the physical impulses; it has nothing to do with rational justification. And fourth, I never suggested that, if your worldview is contradictory, mine automatically becomes proven.
And fifth (my own addendum), even if I had made the claim you're saying, it still wouldn't follow that any argument not directly about that becomes invalid or meaningless. It's hard not to see all this as a slightly obfuscated version of "Hey! Look over there!"
Not sure there's really much of a distinction (not that it matters) and I've already answered your question: I was not using "irrational" as you understood it and I've provided a general basis several times although this link (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/magazine/13Psychology-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0) I referenced before explains things on a comprehensive and proper level. I also took the academic position that I could offer ignorance and I still don't see how that's really a problem. The argument that it'd be hypocritical seems to employ a false analogy because being informed about certain actions--or beauty or love for that matter--through our biology/nature seems rather different from being informed about fantastical and miraculous matters of fact through an unsubstantiated and anonymous religious text. And if you've been referring to my comment about a leap of faith, I really offered that as an olive branch because, as I've said many times before, I see religions as folklore, fable, mythology.
On a lighter note, I was wondering how you'd react in some fundamental moral scenarios. If someone broke into your house and stole your stuff would say, "I'm outraged!! How dare they break the 8th Commandment!!" instead of "WTF!! They stole my stuff!!"? And if you found some guy hitting on your wife would you confront him with, "How dare you break the 10th Commandment in pursuit of breaking the 7th!!" instead of "Hey!! Get your hands off my wife!!"?
The argument that it'd be hypocritical seems to employ a false analogy because being informed about certain actions--or beauty or love for that matter--through our biology/nature seems rather different from being informed about fantastical and miraculous matters of fact through an unsubstantiated and anonymous religious text.
They're different in lots of ways, to be sure, but not in terms of verifiability. These were your words:
"...why believe and devote yourself to something that may be mistaken?"
And that's the same question I'm posing back to you. Is it reasonable to believe in something you're not certain about? The quote above suggests you think it isn't. But your own stated beliefs suggest you think it is. There is an obvious conflict here.
I also took the academic position that I could offer ignorance and I still don't see how that's really a problem.
In a vacuum, saying "I don't know" isn't a problem at all. The problem is saying "I don't know" and then expecting religious people to be able to answer differently to justify their own beliefs.
Not sure there's really much of a distinction (not that it matters) and I've already answered your question: I was not using "irrational" as you understood it and I've provided a general basis several times although this link (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/magazine/13Psychology-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0)
On a lighter note, I was wondering how you'd react in some fundamental moral scenarios. If someone broke into your house and stole your stuff would say, "I'm outraged!! How dare they break the 8th Commandment!!" instead of "WTF!! They stole my stuff!!"? And if you found some guy hitting on your wife would you confront him with, "How dare you break the 10th Commandment in pursuit of breaking the 7th!!" instead of "Hey!! Get your hands off my wife!!"?
Can I ask what your driving at with this hypothetical?
Can I ask what your driving at with this hypothetical?
He obviously wants you to break the 7th commandment by way of the 4th commandment through a loophole created by the 3rd and 8th commandment that causes the 9th commandment to break all the other commandments. You Christians never use your heads.
I took it to be mostly a joke, but with a slightly serious implication that it's silly to pretend morality comes from The Bible because you'd know these things were wrong (and exclaim correspondingly) without having to invoke the Commandments.
If that's what he meant, then it's a misunderstanding of Christian teaching, which is not that all morality is divinely revealed through the Scriptures. Just the opposite, in fact: the Bible says that the law is "written on the hearts of all men." This was actually mentioned 2-3 times earlier in the thread.
Or maybe he meant something else. ;) Dunno.
They're different in lots of ways, to be sure, but not in terms of verifiability. These were your words:
"...why believe and devote yourself to something that may be mistaken?"
And that's the same question I'm posing back to you. Is it reasonable to believe in something you're not certain about? The quote above suggests you think it isn't. But your own stated beliefs suggest you think it is. There is an obvious conflict here.
In a vacuum, saying "I don't know" isn't a problem at all. The problem is saying "I don't know" and then expecting religious people to be able to answer differently to justify their own beliefs.
My remark you keep citing was made as a peace offering but perhaps taking the academic position does lend itself to the analogy you've made though I don't think it really holds.
I wanted to ask you how you view The Bible in terms of what's to be taken as metaphor vs. fact and how you come to that determination.
Can I ask what your driving at with this hypothetical?
That morality is part of human nature.
I wanted to ask you how you view The Bible in terms of what's to be taken as metaphor vs. fact and how you come to that determination.
I'd like to hear from seanc or anyone else as well. :)
That morality is part of human nature.
So believing in a set of guidelines negates this how?
So believing in a set of guidelines negates this how?
My point is that human nature supplies those guidelines.
If that's what he meant, then it's a misunderstanding of Christian teaching, which is not that all morality is divinely revealed through the Scriptures. Just the opposite, in fact: the Bible says that the law is "written on the hearts of all men."
Okay, from the little I know of The Bible this refers to when the messiah comes? Does this mean that before that time gentiles didn't know "the law" and pre-Sinai no one did? And "the law" is the law of the Torah?
I'd also to like to ask if the Ten Commandments are understood to encompass the fundamentals of righteous behavior?
Thanks.
I wanted to ask you how you view The Bible in terms of what's to be taken as metaphor vs. fact and how you come to that determination.
You may have to give me examples because I have never found that difficult. Maybe because I grew up reading the Bible, but I think the writing mostly speaks for itself. If you talking more about OT stories and whether they should be taken as fact or parables. My answer may disappoint you. Because I don't care. The purpose of these writings is to teach us the nature of God. Whether Goliath is a literal giant does not change the life lesson that I am meant to draw from the story or its spiritual application to my life.
The reason I was curious about what you are driving at with the commandment question is because I think there is a misconception that Christianity is a set of rules and if you are luck enough to follow these rules then you are rewarded with an after life with God. In actuality we are all freely given this gift, all we have to do is accept it. When you do you will develop a compulsion to live out these guidelines though. That is because they are not arbitrary rules set so God can tell us whether we are doing good or bad. They are for our benefit and the nefot of those around us.
You may have to give me examples because I have never found that difficult. Maybe because I grew up reading the Bible, but I think the writing mostly speaks for itself. If you talking more about OT stories and whether they should be taken as fact or parables. My answer may disappoint you. Because I don't care. The purpose of these writings is to teach us the nature of God. Whether Goliath is a literal giant does not change the life lesson that I am meant to draw from the story or its spiritual application to my life.
The reason I was curious about what you are driving at with the commandment question is because I think there is a misconception that Christianity is a set of rules and if you are luck enough to follow these rules then you are rewarded with an after life with God. In actuality we are all freely given this gift, all we have to do is accept it. When you do you will develop a compulsion to live out these guidelines though. That is because they are not arbitrary rules set so God can tell us whether we are doing good or bad. They are for our benefit and the nefot of those around us.
So if the stories may not be true it may be the case the authors of The Bible and other religious texts are simply expressing natural, basic and necessary social practices and attributing them to god for a host of reasons, not least of which that they didn't have the wherewithal to place them elsewhere.
So if the stories may not be true it may be the case the authors of The Bible and other religious texts are simply expressing natural, basic and necessary social practices and attributing them to god for a host of reasons, not least of which that they didn't have the wherewithal to place them elsewhere.
We know Jesus and his teachings were real. Almost nobody denies that. I also don't think there is much denying the people of the OT were real. The "stories" aspect comes in when you start talking about whether Jonah really spent time in a whale's belly, how tall was Goliath, was the Red Sea parted in the way it has been portrayed. All these things are debated by even theologians now. My point is what I believe about them doesn't matter because they are not the point of the stories.
We know Jesus and his teachings were real. Almost nobody denies that. I also don't think there is much denying the people of the OT were real. The "stories" aspect comes in when you start talking about whether Jonah really spent time in a whale's belly, how tall was Goliath, was the Red Sea parted in the way it has been portrayed. All these things are debated by even theologians now. My point is what I believe about them doesn't matter because they are not the point of the stories.
Faith.
Faith.
We all got it just a matter of where you put it. Just ask George Michael.
We all got it just a matter of where you put it. Just ask George Michael.
Not sure that's quite true.
Not sure that's quite true.
I know a lot of people don't want to believe it. Those people put their faith in their own understanding. They have way more faith than I do.
I know a lot of people don't want to believe it.
Believe what precisely?
Believe what precisely?
That they place faith in something.
That they place faith in something.
I don't think everyone has faith, especially in the way a believer does.
My remark you keep citing was made as a peace offering but perhaps taking the academic position does lend itself to the analogy you've made though I don't think it really holds.
Does "academic position" mean you don't actually believe it?
And I'm not making any "analogy." You asked how believers can believe in something they can't confirm, and I'm asking the same question of your beliefs. I'm also asking if you claim your morality is rational, and I'm having a heck of a time getting an answer to either. Neither question is ancillary or off topic. These are fair, straightforward questions in direct response to your own claims.
Okay, from the little I know of The Bible this refers to when the messiah comes? Does this mean that before that time gentiles didn't know "the law" and pre-Sinai no one did? And "the law" is the law of the Torah?
No; it's from Paul's epistle to the Romans. It's not about technical law, but innate moral sense (he uses the word "conscience" in the same verse). He also makes a similar point earlier in Romans by making a distinction between things we know simply through existing and having been created by God, and the recognition of God as the source.
I'd also to like to ask if the Ten Commandments are understood to encompass the fundamentals of righteous behavior?
No, the fundamentals of righteous behavior are to love God, and love your neighbor as yourself.
Jesus is specifically asked which commandment is the greatest, and this is the answer He gives. It's really driven home, too, because the same story, with the same answer, is in Matthew, Mark, and Luke.
Does "academic position" mean you don't actually believe it?
And I'm not making any "analogy." You asked how believers can believe in something they can't confirm, and I'm asking the same question of your beliefs. I'm also asking if you claim your morality is rational, and I'm having a heck of a time getting an answer to either. Neither question is ancillary or off topic. These are fair, straightforward questions in direct response to your own claims.
I've already answered this several times and I never questioned how believers or anyone else can believe in things they can't confirm as people do that all the time.
This isn't questioning believers?
In terms of religion, you can choose to take that proverbial leap of faith, but why believe and devote yourself to something that may be mistaken?
No; it's from Paul's epistle to the Romans. It's not about technical law, but innate moral sense (he uses the word "conscience" in the same verse). He also makes a similar point earlier in Romans by making a distinction between things we know simply through existing and having been created by God, and the recognition of God as the source.
No, the fundamentals of righteous behavior are to love God, and love your neighbor as yourself.
Jesus is specifically asked which commandment is the greatest, and this is the answer he gives. It's really driven home, too, because the same story, with the same answer, is in Matthew, Mark, and Luke.
If god gave man an innate moral sense what was the point of giving Moses the Ten Commandments? And if the gospels are a good source of what Jesus said why do they all disagree about his final words on the cross?
This isn't questioning believers?
I understand that you're a busy person with many things to manage but I've answered this as well.
I understand that you're a busy person with many things to manage but I've answered this as well.
Where?
Interesting piece (www.sscnet.ucla.edu/anthro/faculty/fiske/RM_PDFs/Goodenough_Moral_Territoriality.pdf) on moral outrage as territorial behavior.
(Edited for brevity.)
Where?
I've said several times the remark in question was made not because I believe it but to soothe any hurt feelings.
Does "academic position" mean you don't actually believe it?
And I'm not making any "analogy." You asked how believers can believe in something they can't confirm, and I'm asking the same question of your beliefs. I'm also asking if you claim your morality is rational, and I'm having a heck of a time getting an answer to either. Neither question is ancillary or off topic. These are fair, straightforward questions in direct response to your own claims.
I understand your argument, but ultimately what I said is irrelevant because your position, as I've noted before, is that unless I can prove morality is caused naturally you're justified in taking the position that it can be attributed to, and be evidence of, the divine. As I've also noted, this is a logical fallacy, but I also believe there's enough out there to demonstrate morality does emerge naturally. I'll have more to say about all this later.
I've said several times the remark in question was made not because I believe it but to soothe any hurt feelings.
I don't think you've ever said it, actually. I presented these things as contradictions maybe 5-6 times, and at no point did you say "I didn't mean the first remark." You offered contradictions without explanations ("I don't think it holds") or non-sequiturs about it being an olive branch (which is not mutually exclusive with it being a contradiction), but never that simple response.
In fact, in this post (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=1264422#post1264422) I explicitly ask "Does 'academic position' mean you don't actually believe it?," and you didn't even say so then! I'm not sure you're saying so now, either. Look at the quote above: you say you made the remark "not because I believe it," which isn't the same thing as saying you don't. It's just a statement about how you hoped it would be received.
So please, at long last, make your meaning plain: do you believe it or not?
I understand your argument, but ultimately what I said is irrelevant because your position, as I've noted before, is that unless I can prove morality is caused naturally you're justified in taking the position that it can be attributed to, and be evidence of, the divine.
Not only has this never been my position, but the last time you suggested this I explicitly said otherwise (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=1261799#post1261799).
So please, at long last, make your meaning plain: do you believe it or not?
Believe what?
Not only has this never been my position, but the last time you suggested this I explicitly said otherwise (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=1261799#post1261799).
I already said I think you've made a distinction without a difference and this issue is largely unproductive on two counts anyway: First, it doesn't follow that because we don't know the cause of something it must be supernatural--and history has shown what a failed theistic perspective this is. Second, even if morality was irrefutably demonstrated to be natural believers would simply adapt like they have with evolution and other discoveries that have proven their books incorrect.
So VFN has the science on evolution changed at all or are we in the exact same position Darwin had us? Do we know it all now so that you can walk freely without having to put your faith in anything?
So VFN has the science on evolution changed at all or are we in the exact same position Darwin had us? Do we know it all now so that you can walk freely without having to put your faith in anything?
I'm not an expert on evolution but I think its understanding has only increased since Darwin.
So why do you allow for a non believer to be sure yet evolve his thinking but a theist is not extended that same courtesy? What makes you so sure of something your not an expert on? Why is that considered faith for me but not for you?
So why do you allow for a non believer to be sure yet evolve his thinking but a theist is not extended that same courtesy? What makes you so sure of something your not an expert on? Why is that considered faith for me but not for you?
I'm not against a theist who wants to change his perspective and macro-evolution is something evidenced by fossil ages and fossil transitions. The question i think is how or why the transitions happen. And I'm not sure getting into The Bible as science book is going to be productive.
No the Bible certainly isn't a science book. But I don't think there is a science book that can definitively talk about the nature of good and evil either which is what this discussion had basically become. The problem for me has been that you seem to want to tell the believer they are living in an unprovable fairy tale world while you have absolutes on your side. I think when it comes to something this abstract the non believer and believer should consider themselves on equal ground. That doesn't seem to be the case here.
MovieBuffering
03-04-15, 11:43 PM
Something that always bothered me about the popular religions: Christianity, Islam, Judaism...etc...while these religion claim to be the end all tell all, during their origins there were millions of people over here on North and South America who had no access to these "say all be all rules and god, gods. They were over here committing human sacrifices because their crops wouldn't come in and worshiping the sun.(I know almost as crazy as believing in virgin births or 40 virgins at death) So are you telling me for thousands upon thousands of years these people were just destined to hell because they had no access to those religions?
Something smells fishy. Thank god for those Europeans and their big guns and diseases for helping correct their beliefs
(sorry that i'm off topic).
So are you telling me for thousands upon thousands of years these people were just destined to hell because they had no access to those religions?.
Nope, that's not what I'm telling you, that's not what the Bible would tell you, and it's not what 99% of Christians would tell you.
Something has always bothered me about non-religious people. Why are they so willing to throw out something based on unconditional love, forgiveness, and free will because of half truths they heard somewhere once but can't remember where.
No the Bible certainly isn't a science book. But I don't think there is a science book that can definitively talk about the nature of good and evil either which is what this discussion had basically become. The problem for me has been that you seem to want to tell the believer they are living in an unprovable fairy tale world while you have absolutes on your side. I think when it comes to something this abstract the non believer and believer should consider themselves on equal ground. That doesn't seem to be the case here.
Let's just say that holy books as credible sources of fact disservice themselves.
Something has always bothered me about non-religious people. Why are they so willing to throw out something based on unconditional love, forgiveness, and free will because of half truths they heard somewhere once but can't remember where.
Sean, you know I love ya bro but I have to jump in because I just don't think this is an accurate depiction of atheists. We're not just basing what we believe on "half truths". We do a lot of thinking, too. :p The Bible might have good stuff in it but it's not all lovey dovey and has some straight-up weird things in it like people turning into pillars of salt. Yoda and I have talked about this before, though we have differing perceptions we both agree the Bible cannot be taken lightly, it is an incredibly dense and complicated text and I think a lot of stuff gets lost in translation, too. I haven't studied the Bible, certainly not as much as you or Yoda might have, but the more I learn about it the more it strengthens my lack of faith. For some people, however, it strengthens their faith. We all do our own thinking and come to our own conclusions. There are certainly individuals who just spout off what others say but that's not specific to atheism, a lot of religious people are like that too.
MovieBuffering
03-05-15, 12:01 AM
Nope, that's not what I'm telling you, that's not what the Bible would tell you, and it's not what 99% of Christians would tell you.
Something has always bothered me about non-religious people. Why are they so willing to throw out something based on unconditional love, forgiveness, and free will because of half truths they heard somewhere once but can't remember where.
Sorry didn't mean it as in you were telling me. Just a general thought I had not based on what you were saying. What I was implying is the Bible is suppose to be the beginning of the the Earth correct? Then how did half the population on earth have no clue about it for thousands and thousands of years?
I'm sorry I got defensive guys. It is one of my many bad habits. I wasn't trying to imply all atheists think alike or don't understand the believers position. I just feel sometimes people are very dimissive of a believers position because of hell, heaven, and other super natural aspects of our faith.Many times this happens without an actual understanding of what we believe. I thought that was what Moviebuffering was doing so I got snarky. I apologize again. I have to bow out for the night. Talk to you all later.
MovieBuffering
03-05-15, 01:25 AM
I'm sorry I got defensive guys. It is one of my many bad habits. I wasn't trying to imply all atheists think alike or don't understand the believers position. I just feel sometimes people are very dimissive of a believers position because of hell, heaven, and other super natural aspects of our faith.Many times this happens without an actual understanding of what we believe. I thought that was what Moviebuffering was doing so I got snarky. I apologize again. I have to bow out for the night. Talk to you all later.
Ha it's no biggie man. I actually just watched a really smart catholic theologian on youtube about the Bible. His way of explaining the Bible almost made sense to me. Read it as genres. Not all of it is historical journalism. He goes on into greater detail. It had me going for a bit. But anyone as well read as this dude can make an argument for the bible persuasive.
That is what is the biggest problem, interpretation. To have to interpret a book that you are suppose to live your life by and ultimately decide if your ever lasting soul is saved is ludicrous. Give me concrete rules and stories to live by. Actually give me CONCRETE EVIDENCE like science does to counter religious's stories. Then there is the fact that there is other religions and books like the Quran. If I choose the wrong one I am boned. It all stands on flimsy ground.
Don't get me wrong I don't think atheist are right either. They are as absolute in their beliefs as believers are in theirs. I am hedging my bets when it comes to the after life and everyone else should too. NOBODY knows what happens when you die and NOBODY will know until they die. And thats a fact, doubt is the only absolute, until you see for yourself. Least that's my stance.
No, atheism is simply a lack of belief in deities.
Believe what?
That religious people should not believe in something they can't verify. That was the clear implication of your (obviously rhetorical) question.
First, it doesn't follow that because we don't know the cause of something it must be supernatural
Yeah, I never suggested otherwise, and I think I've explicitly agreed twice now. You can stop beating up on this particular straw man. Not only is he dead: he was never alive.
I separated this out because it seems, well, like a separate argument.
Second, even if morality was irrefutably demonstrated to be natural
Who said the argument was about whether morality might be natural? The argument is about whether or not it's rational. The idea that we have moral instincts that contribute to survival has never been under dispute as a possibility, and I'm not sure where you got the idea that it was.
To the contrary, you agreed earlier that it's impossible to prove any kind of objective morality through science. At most, we might be able to trace certain impulses to a related survival benefit. But that still wouldn't tell us anything about whether or not they were rational.
believers would simply adapt like they have with evolution and other discoveries that have proven their books incorrect.
1. The narrative of religion slowly retreating in the face of scientific evidence is simplistic at best and fictional at worst. Catholics contributed to the theory of evolution, and the Church (which is by no means speedy about its formal declarations) formally declared evolution as compatible with its beliefs way back in the 1950s. Famous Christian writers like G.K. Chesterton dismissed the idea that they were in conflict even earlier than that. The idea that it has "proven their books incorrect" doesn't fly.
2. Just what do you think atheism has done over time, comparatively? In the early 20th century skeptics used science to try to argue for eugenics, and the inferiority of races. And then something happened in WWII that made this view seem considerably less sophisticated. And this is still modern history! So if you have disdain for any belief which has "adapted" over time to the prevailing wisdom of the time period, you won't find any refuge in atheism, which has proved just as susceptible to the popular winds and the abuse of fanatics as any religion.
Moreso, actually, because its very nature is far more malleable than religion, which is based in more rigid principles. That's supposed to be one of the things atheists dislike about it. So which is it? Is it too rigid, or too susceptible to popular opinion? Can't be both.
3. While it's certainly true that the ancient church mistook its theological import for scientific knowledge, the opposite is happening today. We see it clearly in the many futile attempts atheists engage in to try to reverse-engineer Judeo-Christian ethics from their materialist worldview. Just as believers once mistook religious authority for scientific authority, atheists now mistakenly think they can apply scientific rigor to non-scientific areas.
No, atheism is simply a lack of belief in deities.
This is true of the word atheism. In practice, actual atheists often resemble something more aptly called "anti-theists." One of the arguments I make is that atheism may or may not be true, but there is no coherent version of it that should compel an atheist to actively argue for atheism. It simply doesn't fit the rest of the worldview. Which is the first hint that maybe something other than pure reason and skepticism is involved.
Also worth pointing out that a lack of belief in many things has no further implications for other beliefs. For example, I don't believe in unicorns, and that fact doesn't ripple throughout my worldview in any meaningful way. But in atheism's case, not believing in any God has profound implications for every other part of life: morality, truth, rationality, love, and more.
In other words, there is an either/or aspect to the existence of the Universe that separates atheism from any other lack of belief. To deny God is to necessarily affirm certain alternative truths. Which is one of the reasons I say atheism/materialism isn't actually a neutral starting point.
BOWgoesBOW
03-05-15, 12:52 PM
"To deny God is to necessarily affirm certain alternative truths. Which is one of the reasons I say atheism/materialism isn't actually a neutral starting point."
Oddly, this seems to tie in to many things I am studying in a class about how to argue effectively. I will agree with this statement, and say that God is good.
Citizen Rules
03-05-15, 02:59 PM
I'm sorry I got defensive guys. It is one of my many bad habits. I wasn't trying to imply all atheists think alike or don't understand the believers position. I just feel sometimes people are very dimissive of a believers position because of hell, heaven, and other super natural aspects of our faith.Many times this happens without an actual understanding of what we believe. I thought that was what Moviebuffering was doing so I got snarky. I apologize again. I have to bow out for the night. Talk to you all later. Your A OK in my book Sean :) It takes a big person to say they made a mistake and to say sorry. Not many people can do that these days. I'm impressed that you did.
Who said the argument was about whether morality might be natural? The argument is about whether or not it's rational.
I still don't understand what you mean by rational. As to everything else you wrote I'm not sure how it pertains to my position.
I want to add that if being attacked is considered wrong because of an instinct or feeling to preserve one's welfare that could be said to be a rational reason or basis for such consideration. As far as an objective morality, we don't even know if such a thing exists so I don't see how it's germane to the discussion.
As to everything else you wrote I'm not sure how it pertains to my position.
You don't see how having a different standard for religion than your own beliefs might explain why you believe in one over the other?
I've tried to be polite through all this, but the evasions are piling up. I presented you with a clear contradiction. After giving me the run around for a dozen posts you finally (why not sooner?) said "I said that not because I believe it." So I said, okay: do you believe it? At which point you asked "Believe in what?" I indulged this inexplicable question (had you suddenly forgotten what we were talking about?)...and now you're dodging it again, with no explanation.
Keeping this part separate, since it's a separate issue:
I still don't understand what you mean by rational.
I mean the standard dictionary definition of the word: based in reason and logic. You have many instincts, yes? And because you're not an animal, you do not indulge them simply because they're there. You judge them and decide which to indulge and which are just irrational animal impulses that ought to be suppressed. Ergo, impulses can be rational or irrational, and whether or not they have a natural source doesn't change this.
I want to add that if being attacked is considered wrong because of an instinct or feeling to preserve one's welfare that could be said to be a rational reason or basis for such consideration.
Glad you brought this up, because there's an important distinction here: a process can be rational, even if the goal isn't. I've made this distinction a handful of times (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=1260859#post1260859), but here's an analogy that might help it finally land:
Imagine an insane person. They think there are spiders on them, and scratching at their skin makes this thought go away. The scratching is "rational" in the sense that it is a logical way of achieving something they want. But the thing they want to achieve is not rational, because it is based on an unjustified premise.
Similarly, moral rules can be "rational" in the sense that they achieve some goal ("I wouldn't like X, so let's make a rule that says people can't do X"). But they can never be "rational" in the sense of justifying that goal. That part is always sub-rational. That part is always "just because."
AdamUpBxtch
03-06-15, 01:06 PM
Just don't be butt hurt when they finally start putting the Bible under Fiction.....where it belongs
Just don't be butthurt when I point out your comment sounds like it came from some Dawkins-worshipping sophomore's blog comment section...where it belongs.
This facile stuff doesn't fly here. This is a conversation for grown-ups.
You don't see how having a different standard for religion than your own beliefs might explain why you believe in one over the other?
I've tried to be polite through all this, but the evasions are piling up. I presented you with a clear contradiction. After giving me the run around for a dozen posts you finally (why not sooner?) said "I said that not because I believe it." So I said, okay: do you believe it? At which point you asked "Believe in what?" I indulged this inexplicable question (had you suddenly forgotten what we were talking about?)...and now you're dodging it again, with no explanation.
My position, as I've said countless times before, is that holy books are demonstrably false and therefore should be dismissed as folklore, fabrication. And I don't think any conclusions about anything should be based on belief. If you then want to say morality may evidence your god because you don't feel it's been proven otherwise then you're free to do that, but that means everything unproven is evidence of your god and, as I've also said countless times before, history has proven that a terribly failed position.
Imagine an insane person. They think there are spiders on them, and scratching at their skin makes this thought go away. The scratching is "rational" in the sense that it is a logical way of achieving something they want. But the thing they want to achieve is not rational, because it is based on an unjustified premise.
Similarly, moral rules can be "rational" in the sense that they achieve some goal ("I wouldn't like X, so let's make a rule that says people can't do X"). But they can never be "rational" in the sense of justifying that goal. That part is always sub-rational. That part is always "just because."
The scratching isn't rational because the spiders aren't there, they're a delusion. We make a law preventing attack because being damaged is bad for our well-being, wrong for us.
My position
Your position is made up of all your claims, not just the ones you feel more comfortable defending, and not just the ones you started off making. You've made far more claims than the one you're rearticulating now, and I'm asking you about some of them. It's pretty simple.
The scratching isn't rational because the spiders aren't there, they're a delusion. We make a law preventing attack because being damaged is bad for our well-being, wrong for us.
Indeed, laws against murder are not identical to spider delusions. Glad we cleared that up. But the point was that a process can be rational even if a goal is not.
Your position is made up of all your claims, not just the ones you feel more comfortable defending, and not just the ones you started off making. You've made far more claims than the one you're rearticulating now, and I'm asking you about some of them. It's pretty simple.
Indeed, laws against murder are not identical to spider delusions. Glad we cleared that up. But the point was that a process can be rational even if a goal is not.
My position has been very simple and consistent: Holy books are folklore and divine and metaphysical claims are speculation.
The spider analogy is completely mistaken as I just showed.
Why is that "your position" and not all the other things you've said? Are you not accountable for those claims and arguments because you haven't designated them "your position"?
Why is that "your position" and not all the other things you've said? Are you not accountable for those claims and arguments because you haven't designated them "your position"?
I'm not sure what you're referring to but I've had only one position which I've stated many, many times.
You only have one position? So what do you call all the other statements and arguments you've posted throughout the thread?
You only have one position? So what do you call all the other statements and arguments you've posted throughout the thread?
Actually, almost all my written words have been responses to you. :eek: :) Look, besides my view that holy books are folklore, or expressions of what is thought to be, should be, etc., I don't really have a position. Indeed, I've already said science itself may just be good at measuring the illusion.
AdamUpBxtch
03-07-15, 03:12 AM
Just don't be butthurt when I point out your comment sounds like it came from some Dawkins-worshipping sophomore's blog comment section...where it belongs.
This facile stuff doesn't fly here. This is a conversation for grown-ups.
I'm sorry that i'm pro-science. I need hard facts before i believe something to be true. Faith alone is not a good insurer.
Now a good number of things in the bible I believe are true. There was a man name Jesus. I'm sure that's true. Do i believe that he was the son of god? No. Do i think he could turn water into wine? No. Do i believe he could walk on water? A Puddle maybe but anything larger no. Did he amass a huge following? Obviously since there was a book written about him.
I am simply a realist. Do i wish/hope there is a god? I would hope there is so life didn't end in the physical form but there is no evidence whatsoever to back up there being a god or a higher power and all the things that happen everyday life make me believe less in one everyday (with all these Disasters, children being killed, despicable acts being carried out by terrible people across the planet, etc)
hello101
03-07-15, 03:51 AM
I feel sorry for Atheists when they're misrepresented by above-like posts. Grow up.
AdamUpBxtch
03-07-15, 03:54 AM
I feel sorry for Atheists when they're misrepresented by above-like posts. Grow up.
misrepresented? What was so immature about my post? Those are my feelings on the whole thing. People can go on reading the bible all the want, i just won't be. So bringing science into the debate is "unreasonable"?
I'm sorry that i'm pro-science. I need hard facts before i believe something to be true. Faith alone is not a good insurer.
Now a good number of things in the bible I believe are true. There was a man name Jesus. I'm sure that's true. Do i believe that he was the son of god? No. Do i think he could turn water into wine? No. Do i believe he could walk on water? A Puddle maybe but anything larger no. Did he amass a huge following? Obviously since there was a book written about him.
I am simply a realist. Do i wish/hope there is a god? I would hope there is so life didn't end in the physical form
but there is no evidence whatsoever to back up there being a god or a higher power
Life ending in physical form isn't contingent on there "being a god or not".
From a secular perspective it's unknown what causes individual consciousness (ex. while brain activity might cause consciousness in general - what caused you to be born in your specific body hasn't been explained) - so the idea that one's consciousness can't be "re born" after death in another existence can't be ruled out - god and 'supernatural' having nothing to do with it.
and all the things that happen everyday life make me believe less in one everyday (with all these Disasters, children being killed, despicable acts being carried out by terrible people across the planet, etc)
That'd be less evidence of a "perfect God" than evidence of "a God period" - other scenarios would be
-A non-omnipotent designer - had the ability to create the universe in it's present state but not 'iron out the flaws'
-A deceased designer - god is actually a member of an extraterrestrial race who died or was killed in war in another dimension before it could complete its project
The "bad stuff happens so they're can't be a God" argument though is a stupid one, so atheists need to stop using it. It'd be like saying "A Ferrari couldn't have been designed by someone because it has mechanical flaws".
I feel sorry for Atheists when they're misrepresented by above-like posts. Grow up.
Wasn't anything wrong with what he said - saying the Bible is fiction isn't 'bad' just because someone's offended who thinks it's all literal events.
On the other hand his arguments were cliche and were bad ones which I think atheists need to stop using - such as the "a designer can't exist because bad stuff happens in the world" argument.
hello101
03-07-15, 07:26 AM
It's not what he said, it's how he said it.
Actually, almost all my written words have been responses to you. :eek: :) Look, besides my view that holy books are folklore, or expressions of what is thought to be, should be, etc., I don't really have a position. Indeed, I've already said science itself may just be good at measuring the illusion.
I guess I'm fuzzy on the distinction between the things you say, and the positions you "really" have. Obviously, you've made lots of different claims throughout the discussion, but it sounds like you're saying most of those don't count/can't be questioned. That doesn't seem particularly fair or reasonable, especially when said after the fact.
I'm not sure the distinction is even possible; most positions are made up of other positions. You don't think holy books are folklore as an axiom, you think they're folklore because you've taken other positions about how to weigh evidence that they fall short of. So those positions are, in fact, part of this one. Which is why they came up in the process of discussing it.
I'm sorry that i'm pro-science.
Okay...? Is there a scientific principle that forces you to leave juvenile remarks in otherwise thoughtful discussions? If not, then being "pro-science" has nothing to do with it.
The comment you posted was a simple provocation without any point. It contains no insight. It contains no argument. It's just a drive-by swipe, with a pinch of memetic slang thrown in just to spite people. Whether or not you're right doesn't even have anything to do with it; it would still be juvenile and useless. It's the kind of thing you'd expect to see in the comments section of some angry YouTube video, not something grown-ups say when they want to discuss something serious.
Moreover, when someone says they disbelieve in God because they're "pro-science," all that tells me is that they have a twisted notion of what science actually is. It has literally nothing to do with the metaphysical. They can't even conflict, by definition.
and all the things that happen everyday life make me believe less in one everyday (with all these Disasters, children being killed, despicable acts being carried out by terrible people across the planet, etc)
See, this is what I'm talking about. This has the whiff of the adolescent rite of passage that says "I just thought of this problem, and I'm going to act like it's never occurred to anyone else."
Do you really think religious people are oblivious to suffering and the questions it poses, or that there are no arguments about this? It's one of the most discussed theological concepts in history. It's called the Problem of Pain, and literally millions of words have been written about it. It's all there for people who actually want to get to the truth of things, as opposed to those who just want to feel reassured in their beliefs.
You know how science actually works? You know how you try to determine if something is true? You work your ass off to try to disprove your own theory. And arguments are the same way. If you're actually a skeptical, questioning person, then you will actively seek out the best arguments against your position you can find. Because those are the ones that should actually matter to you.
I guess I'm fuzzy on the distinction between the things you say, and the positions you "really" have. Obviously, you've made lots of different claims throughout the discussion, but it sounds like you're saying most of those don't count/can't be questioned. That doesn't seem particularly fair or reasonable, especially when said after the fact.
I'm not sure the distinction is even possible; most positions are made up of other positions. You don't think holy books are folklore as an axiom, you think they're folklore because you've taken other positions about how to weigh evidence that they fall short of. So those positions are, in fact, part of this one. Which is why they came up in the process of discussing it.
I'm not sure what you're referring to in regard to other claims I've made and holy books make demonstrably false claims about matters of fact so they discredit themselves. As to rationality and morality I'm still not sure what you're getting at by process vs goal but let me say a few short things on the matter.
Just because something may be instinctual doesn't mean it doesn't serve a purpose, the fight or flight response being a good example. Many see the underpinnings of morality as instinctual or hardwired, as part of our nature, but it serves the purpose of keeping our social units intact. The basic laws that all societies and tribes have had from the beginning as well as kindness or altruism maintain the group and prevent it's disintegration. In fact, we see this in the first of all social units the family: Parents treat their children fairly, with kindness, prohibit certain behaviors, protect them from harm, including each other, etc. Certain conduct can thus be understood as good or bad, right or wrong, because they are necessarily so, required to ensure the welfare and viability of the the group, ourselves.
Some who argue divine morality accept a biological view on a basic level but feel it can't explain everything, but this is answered by pointing out that not everything we believe or do is adaptive--although it may have its roots in that--but emerge from psychology, culture, contemplation etc. A short and very good piece on this can be found in Paul Bloom's (http://www.newrepublic.com/article/116200/moral-design-latest-form-intelligent-design-its-wrong) (Yale psychology professor who did morality in babies studies (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/09/magazine/09babies-t.html?_r=0&adxnnl=1&pagewanted=all&adxnnlx=1425772825-DZAjIaERB+GShJOC3B8b7Q)) reply to Francis Collins' (physical chemist, medical geneticist, former head of the Human Genome Project) view that morality is evidence of the divine.
That at least the bulk of morality can be placed in a evolutionary context is supported by what we would deem moral behavior in other social species (http://www1.umn.edu/ships/evolutionofmorality/questions.htm) and would seem to pose a problem for divine theory. The observation that morality doesn't appear entirely universal or fixed seems to be a problem as well. There are, and have been, differing moral views on sexual conduct for instance and practices such as slavery which were once widely accepted are now condemned. One would think that if a god implanted our sense of morality it wouldn't differ or be subject to change. Additionally, I wonder that if a divine moral sense is so very important why is psychopathy and other brain malformation allowed that prevents or renders it impotent.
I'm not sure what you're referring to in regard to other claims I've made
The claim that religious people shouldn't follow a code they can't verify. And the claim that it's fine for skeptics to do the same.
Countless others, too; we've been going at this awhile, and I'm pretty sure you haven't been saying "Holy books are folklore" over and over the whole time. You've made statements in support of that position, as well as statements about lots of other things as the discussion has branched off. I know you know this because you've given occasional, glancing replies to some of it. So it's inexplicable that you'd repeatedly ask me what I'm talking about. If I didn't already regard you as an honest person, I would literally believe you were trolling me.
As to rationality and morality I'm still not sure what you're getting at by process vs goal but let me say a few short things on the matter.
I think I made it fairly clear here (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=1266602#post1266602):
But the point was that a process can be rational even if a goal is not.
It is rational to adopt moral principles that reduce things we do not like once we take those things as givens. But that's different than saying the things we do not like are rational, or philosophically justifiable.
A lot of people get tripped up on this because the things we dislike are so visceral, and feel so obviously bad, that it's easy to forget they require rational justification just like anything else. But they do. Especially if you're a materialist in a debate talking about how we shouldn't believe in anything we can't empirically verify.
As for the rest of the post: it's still swinging at straw men. I've stated over and over that I'm not disputing the idea that morality could have a natural basis. All my questions to you are, in fact, based on assuming this is true, and tracing out the logical implications of the idea.
I will, however, engage on a couple of specific things you touch on:
Certain conduct can thus be understood as good or bad, right or wrong, because they are necessarily so, required to ensure the welfare and viability of the the group, ourselves.
And why should someone care about the welfare of the group beyond which the point at which it happens to benefit them?
Some who argue divine morality accept a biological view on a basic level but feel it can't explain everything, but this is answered by pointing out that not everything we believe or do is adaptive--although it may have its roots in that--but emerge from psychology, culture, contemplation etc. A short and very good piece on this can be found in Paul Bloom's (http://www.newrepublic.com/article/116200/moral-design-latest-form-intelligent-design-its-wrong) (Yale psychology professor who did morality in babies studies (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/09/magazine/09babies-t.html?_r=0&adxnnl=1&pagewanted=all&adxnnlx=1425772825-DZAjIaERB+GShJOC3B8b7Q)) reply to Francis Collins' (physical chemist, medical geneticist, former head of the Human Genome Project) view that morality is evidence of the divine.
Those things aren't "explained" by psychology, culture, and contemplation, because those things first need an impulse to contemplate about. It is rationality applied to preconceptions about what is desirable, not rationality about what is desirable in the first place. I'll grant this is an easy distinction to miss, but it's an important one.
Let's try another analogy: if you don't have the right destination in mind, no amount of reasoning about the best way to get there will take you to the right place. You can exhibit all sorts of contemplation about how to achieve a goal, but that's distinct from contemplating what your goals should be. Or:
http://image.slidesharecdn.com/app-ifiyingwordpress-140726174835-phpapp02/95/appifiying-wordpress-practical-tips-for-using-wordpress-as-an-application-platform-15-638.jpg?cb=1406415041
That at least the bulk of morality can be placed in a evolutionary context is supported by what we would deem moral behavior in other social species (http://www1.umn.edu/ships/evolutionofmorality/questions.htm) and would seem to pose a problem for divine theory.
I can't possibly see why this would pose any problem. The fact that moral impulses have survival benefits makes sense regardless of whether or not we're sophisticated animals, or God's own creations. The former because of selection (we wouldn't survive if we didn't have this) and the latter because it would be pointless for God to endow creatures with instincts that would immediately eradicate them.
The observation that morality doesn't appear entirely universal or fixed seems to be a problem as well.
You literally said the exact opposite of this earlier in the discussion (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=1179856#post1179856):
Regarding your view concerning objective reality, the idea can certainly be entertained by secular thought and it may even exist although it would be termed a universal morality. For instance, has there ever been a culture that's condoned murder among their own? Theft? Is it coincidence that all cultures appear to share some basic codes of conduct? We do have objective or universal physical laws so perhaps we do have something similar with morality, which doesn't mean it's always followed
Wait wait, don't tell me: this is another one of those positions that isn't really a position, right? ;)
It wouldn't be a problem anyway, however: the fact that people don't always live up to moral standards doesn't mean they do no exist, any more than breaking the rules of a game means it has no rules.
There are, and have been, differing moral views on sexual conduct for instance and practices such as slavery which were once widely accepted are now condemned.
If you examine any of these in detail you will invariably find that they are not examples of different morality, but differences about either a) facts or b) priorities. For example, differing views on sexual conduct can be explained by placing varying levels of emphasis on discretion or honor relative to autonomy or pleasure. All four of those things are good, in and of themselves, and culture mores about sexual conduct reflect how we reconcile it when they appear to conflict. They reflect differences in priority, not in core morality.
Slavery, on the other hand, has often been based on a difference in fact. Slaveholders throughout history often make the excuse that the people they enslaved were inferior. This is wrong, but it is wrong on a factual level. And the fact that such excuses have been made implicitly acknowledges that you can't just enslave whoever for any reason. If you could, no excuse would be necessary.
Additionally, I wonder that if a divine moral sense is so very important why is psychopathy and other brain malformation allowed that prevents or renders it impotent.
The most telling thing about this is that you clearly regard psychopathy and brain malformation as wrong, rather than just different. You regard these things as defects. But why? Brain malformation, sure, but psychopathy? I can't think of any purely rational, secular reason to think of psychopathy as a defect. The studies I've seen suggest such people are disproportionately successful.
What in a secular worldview would stop you from regarding them as the next stage in human evolution? Questions like this begin cropping up the moment you reduce morality to survival benefit, rather than an immutable standard of its own.
I can't think of any purely rational, secular reason to think of psychopathy as a defect.
It's been explained multiple times in this thread (ex. lower success rates in life, lower level of pre-frontal cortex activity - chemical deficiencies which cause unhappyness and result in psychopathic behavior being a "drug" of sorts, etc) - that fact that you're ignoring this even when explained to you outright in strong detail is disappointing.
The studies I've seen suggest such people are disproportionately successful.
I'm not sure if those studies are from PrisonPlanet.com or not - but it's been explained to you that you're incorrect on this, you're just repeating debunked claims.
If you're talking about fringe cases such as dictators like Hitler or Stalin who acquired great power, that's more of a 'pop culture' trope' than anything else - statistically the average psychopath is more likely to wind up in prison. Sure a psychopath is going to be more "successful" as a gang leader, a terrorist, a con-artist, etc than a "normal person" - but the idea that those 'professions' are success in themselves is false.
The only psychopaths who are successful in 'normal' situtations or jobs are ones either with great privileged (ex. inherited the company from daddy) or great talent (ex. Hitler's strong intellect and charistmatic speaking style helped convince Germans to give him power) - the average psychopath is statistically much less successful than the average person.
It's also been explained that psychopaths are less able to meet the evolutionary function of perpetuating a positive legacy (therefore they're dependent on short-term, material acquisition or stimulation to fill the void).
If they were successful then it wouldn't be psychopathy. The definition of the term is defined by psychology as what the behavior it results in (ex. social harm and dysfunction), not that "it's bad... just because someone says so... and claims God told them this".
What in a secular worldview would stop you from regarding them as the next stage in human evolution?
Lack of evolutionary success at adaption - which sociopaths aren't able to do due to having inferior such as pre-frontal cortex activity, statistically they're more likely to wind up in prison. They're also deficient in pleasure chemicals (ex. oxytocin) which humans create in normal social situations, meaning they're less happy in spite - just like a drug addict isn't a 'happy person' even if they have all the cocaine/heroin/etc they could ever want.
From a neurological perspective psychopaths are also "less evolved", and demonstrate less complex human emotions (the main emotions they exhibit are simpler, more animalistic urges). So this suggestion sounds like it comes from watching too much Sci-Fi and not reading enough actual psychology/science.
Questions like this begin cropping up the moment you reduce morality to survival benefit,
That's not a question that'd 'crop up' to anyone unless they're hugely ignorant on sociopathy, and survivability/adaption. Or just intentionally dishonest.
"If children go to heaven, then why not kill them and guarantee they go to heaven - rather than let them reach adulthood where they have the potential to turn away from God and go to Hell."
"If believing in Jesus guarantees salvation, than why not rob, rape and murder all you want? - just be sure to give your soul to Jesus on your deathbed and it's A-OK, like the murderer on the cross did."
"Since Jesus never condemned the Old Law, then why would it be immoral to create a totalitarian, theocratic state like in the Old Testament which stones rape victims, executes children who disrespect their parents, people who pick up sticks on the Sabbath? Etc. Just because "the Old Law isn't required" doesn't mean it'd be wrong to follow what God himself ordained, right?"
All far more valid questions. Which reveal the far stronger moral 'relativism' of religion - since it's all 'relative' to the whim of people claiming (but being unable to prove) to speak for God, rather than observable facts. Because a Jihadist who believes bombing infidels guarantees salvation has just as much "evidence" for his belief as any mainstream Christian, Muslim, or Jew - so removing actual facts and evidence from the equation, on can't say that his belief is any less valid than any other.
rather than an immutable standard of its own.
...based on observable facts and cost/benefit... rather than something that was just 'pulled out of someone's ass' and claimed to be true "just because". Even the founders agreed with this:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident"
In other words, the founders believed the rights defined in the Constitution were conclusions based on facts observable in nature which showed they were the most beneficial way for people to live - the founders didn't invision themselves as Joseph Smith or Muhammed who had all of this just "told to them in a dream by Angels" or something absurd like that.
Cobpyth
03-09-15, 06:58 PM
@90sAce: I think you should read up on what psychopathy actually means, because this is the biggest nonsense I have ever read in my entire life:
If they were successful then it wouldn't be psychopathy.
@90sAce: I think you should read up on what psychopathy actually means, because this is the biggest nonsense I have ever read in my entire life:
Not at all. The reason said behaviors are defined as psychopathic is because of the negative results. They aren't defined as psychopathic because "some supernatural being spoke to the APA in a dream and told them it was". It's because of results which are measurable in nature.
If in some completely alternative reality said behaviors did have a positive net result, then they wouldn't be defined as psychopathic - which was the hypothetical scenario I was addressing.
For example, "If Allah was real, and killing infidels did guarantee salvation - then killing infidels would be moral."
Or "If God was real, and ordered you in a dream to sacrifice your child to him like he did Abraham" - then it would be moral.
I'm talking about sociopathy/a lack of empathy. Apparently there's some debate about how interchangeable these terms are, so that might account for the confusion, though per usual you could clear a lot up by asking a question, rather than launching into a series of unnecessary analogies and arguments.
It's also been explained that psychopaths are less able to meet the evolutionary function of perpetuating a positive legacy (therefore they're dependent on short-term, material acquisition or stimulation to fill the void).
Irrelevant, except insofar as it contributes to survival, as explained earlier (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=1262036#post1262036) (response to fourth quote).
If they were successful then it wouldn't be psychopathy. The definition of the term is defined by psychology as what the behavior it results in (ex. social harm and dysfunction)
Not quite. It's defined by amoral or antisocial behavior. Something being antisocial is malleable--it's a reflection of how many people don't like it. This is an important distinction, because the whole point is that mental illness is based on an assumption about what is "normal," which is based primarily in numbers. If everyone lacked empathy, nobody would be thought to lack anything.
All far more valid questions. Which reveal the far stronger moral 'relativism' of religion - since it's all 'relative' to the whim of people claiming (but being unable to prove) to speak for God, rather than observable facts.
Nope; that just moves the relativism around. Instead of being about how to interpret God's standards, it becomes about which observable facts to factor in making a judgment and which goals are to be prioritized over others in the first place. And you still have interpretation on top of that anyway, because there's no magic Survival Calculator that can show us what we get for which behaviors across society. All data involves interpretation, including the decision about which data to look at, when, and why.
...based on observable facts and cost/benefit... rather than something that was just 'pulled out of someone's ass' and claimed to be true "just because". Even the founders agreed with this:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident"
In other words, the founders believed the rights defined in the Constitution were conclusions based on facts observable in nature which showed they were the most beneficial way for people to live
Not only does that not mean what you say, it means the exact opposite: the truths are self-evident. That means they don't need to be demonstrated or explained. That is literally the opposite of saying it's based on "facts observable in nature." So yes, they were literally saying "just because."
the founders didn't invision themselves as Joseph Smith or Muhammed who had all of this just "told to them in a dream by Angels" or something absurd like that.
How about something absurd about how people have rights because they were "endowed by their Creator" with them? What a bunch of religious wack jobs, huh?
I'm talking about sociopathy/a lack of empathy. Apparently there's some debate about how interchangeable these terms are, so that might account for the confusion, though per usual you could clear a lot up by asking a question, rather than launching into a series of unnecessary analogies and arguments.
Having too much empathy in do or die situations can be less successful (ex. a soldier having 'empathy' for enemy forces in the middle of a firefight). But overall less empathy means less ability to understand others' feelings and adapt and succeed in society.
Irrelevant, except insofar as it contributes to survival, as explained earlier (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=1262036#post1262036) (response to fourth quote).
Psychopathy doesn't particularly aid in survival - survival and thriving is about adaptability which in the modern world especially requires intellect and emotional intelligence more than anything else.
A psychopath might do better as a soldier than a "good person" who is too scared to kill someone, but the ideal soldier is definitely not a psychopath - it's someone who is good and trustworthy, but also courageous and not afraid to fight or die.
Not quite. It's defined by amoral or antisocial behavior. Something being antisocial is malleable--it's a reflection of how many people don't like it. This is an important distinction, because the whole point is that mental illness is based on an assumption about what is "normal," which is based primarily in numbers. If everyone lacked empathy, nobody would be thought to lack anything.
Not actually correct, psychopathy is distinct from "social nonconformity". If it wasn't, then the founders would be "psychopaths" since 'society' at the time considered King George their "God appointed ruler". But psychology doesn't consider nonconformist individuals like George Washington, Richard Loving, etc to be psychopaths - in fact the society's behaviors (ex. imprisoning someone just for marrying outside their race) would be considered more psychopathic.
Nope; that just moves the relativism around. Instead of being about how to interpret God's standards, it becomes about which observable facts to factor in making a judgment and which goals are to be prioritized over others in the first place. And you still have interpretation on top of that anyway, because there's no magic Survival Calculator that can show us what we get for which behaviors across society. All data involves interpretation, including the decision about which data to look at, when, and why.
Not only does that not mean what you say, it means the exact opposite: the truths are self-evident.
The word evident derives from 'evidence' - aka, exists in nature.
E.X. A revelation from an angel to to Muhammed would not be 'evident' since it did not occur in nature, Which is why religious people say their beliefs are based on faith, not that they're 'self evident'.
That means they don't need to be demonstrated or explained. That is literally the opposite of saying it's based on "facts observable in nature."
So yes, they were literally saying "just because."
No they weren't. They were asserting that people do have natural instinct, and don't need to 'be taught' these things to understand them - which is true (just like animals "don't need to be taught they should eat, reproduce, etc) - they weren't suggesting however that these things existed "in some magical void" separate from nature - they believed strongly that these rights came from nature itself.
If they had believed what you say they do, then they would be wrong, but they weren't. They believed we understood them "just because" (aka our natural instinct), not that they existed without any reason in nature.
How about something absurd about how we have rights because they were "endowed by their Creator" with them?
What a bunch of religious wack jobs, huh?
Their conception of the creator and the rights wasn't that he "came to them in a vision and revealed something to them which on one else had ever known before" - their conception is that the rights existed because they were a part of nature itself. Many of them were deists, so any rights in their mind which existed did exist as an extension of nature, rather than as something contradictory with nature as you seem to assert.
Someone like Muhammed or Joseph Smith however believed that their revelations were "solely based" on something God communicated with them, rather than anything which could be corroborated with in nature - this is the key difference between their lines of thought.
The word evident derives from 'evidence' - aka, exists in nature.
I'm amazed at how much wrongness is squeezed into this one sentence.
1) That's the etymological root, not the definition.
2) "Evidence" is not "aka, exists in nature." The word "evidence" is not definitionally limited to the physical.
3) They didn't say "evident," anyway: they said self-evident. The "self" qualifies the word "evident," to say that whatever evidence there is does not actually need to be demonstrated (let alone physically).
No they weren't. They were asserting that people do have natural instinct, and don't need to 'be taught' these things to understand them - which is true (just like animals "don't need to be taught they should eat, reproduce, etc)
Moving the goalposts much? You claimed that "self-evident" meant it was based on "observable facts and cost/benefit." That's straight-up wrong. Now you're saying it just means people don't need to be taught them, which is true, but a completely different claim than you originally made.
they weren't suggesting however that these things existed "in some magical void" separate from nature - they believed strongly that these rights came from nature itself.
No they didn't. You know how I know? Because they didn't say "endowed by nature itself." They also didn't say "endowed by their mere existence." They said "endowed by their Creator." They explicitly say that we have rights because our Creator gave them to us.
Cobpyth
03-09-15, 09:03 PM
Let's quit talking about religions for a moment, 90sAce and let's just look at some facts and interpretations.
Psychopaths (which has absolutely nothing to do with succes or no succes) are more eager to survive than non-psychopaths in a wild "survival of the fittest" scenario. You could even say that immorality gets rewarded and therefore seems the logical way to go under pure individual evolution.
I took a class in moral philosophy last year and this was pointed out as one of the main curiosities when talking about the inner morality of humans and why it exists. Why do most people have "moral instincts" when it doesn't seem interesting on an evolutionary level?
There are several theories about this subject.
The most convincing one for me was that we might have partly "invented" morality because it's a necessary tool if we want to live together in groups. We have to punish the ones that prey on the others or otherwise we just end up in chaos and an environment that noone can or wants to live in. A common sense of rationality (in a certain group) imposes moral rules on a specific society and it gets transferred to other generations through the ways in which children are raised, educated, etc.
There are various kinds of interpretations of morality in different cultures both throughout history and all over the world today, though. In certain cultures it's a necessity to kill someone at times to show your power and to let people know that they shouldn't mess with you, while in other cultures killing someone is (almost) always strongly condemned.
We can rationalize and argue about what system is the most ethical, but the fact is that, when you don't believe in a higher moral force, there can never be an absolute truth. "God is dead". There is no ultimate foundation you can rely on, nothing you can point to.
I'm not saying there needs to be an absolute moral truth (it would make things a lot easier, though), but the least thing you can do is recognize that there isn't one according to your view on life. Don't try to convince yourself with fallacies that there is a certain fairness to your world view, because everything will always lead to indifference in the end.
Be consistent and don't be hypocritical. Know where you stand for and confront yourself with it. ;)
I'm amazed at how much wrongness is squeezed into this one sentence.
1) That's the etymological root, not the definition.
2) "Evidence" is not "aka, exists in nature." The word "evidence" is not definitionally limited to the physical.
3) They didn't say "evident," anyway: they said self-evident. The "self" qualifies the word "evident," to say that whatever evidence there is does not actually need to be demonstrated (let alone physically).
That doesn't mean that it "cannot be demonstrated" - they were simply saying it was evident enough that it "didn't need to" in their opinion.
For example, a person would instinctively know that jumping off the Eiffel Tower is harmful - they wouldn't have to read a bunch of medical journals describing the injuries they'd suffer to know this instinctively.
Nevertheless the reason they perceive it is bad is based on the tangible harm it would result in and can be corroborated in nature, not because "some supernatural being told them jumping off the Eiffel Tower is bad".
Moving the goalposts much? You claimed that "self-evident" meant it was based on "observable facts and cost/benefit." That's straight-up wrong. Now you're saying it just means people don't need to be taught them, which is true, but a completely different claim than you originally made.
Incorrect - both are true as previously explained. Animals have natural instincts which 'lead them in the right direction' - ex. animals know instinctively to find food and reproduce, people know instinctively not to 'jump off clips' without having to read so in a book, etc
However the actual benefits to these actions are also corroborated with nature - so learning about the costs/benefits at an in-depth level helps to maximize potentional
(ex. people have a natural drive to mate and find a love/spouse which they 'aren't taught' - however learning about the dynamics of attraction and relationships at a deeper level helps one to maximize their potential in the dating and relationship scene).
The founders were essentially saying that even without formal learning that people have enough natural instinct to understand these things - they were not however saying that it "conflicts with nature" or "exists outside of nature", this was not their belief.
No they didn't. You know how I know? Because they didn't say "endowed by nature itself." They also didn't say "endowed by their mere existence." They said "endowed by their Creator."
Yes, the creator of... nature. :cool: Of which humans are one part of.
They explicitly say that we have rights because our Creator gave them to us.
Yes, he gave them to us when he created nature - he didn't just "snap his fingers" one day and "give them to us" in some magical alternative reality separate from nature.
The majority of the Founders were deists - they believed in a creator but did not believe that he in anyway conflicted with the nature he created - saying otherwise about them is just dishonest, period.
The came to their conclusion about the 'rights' of man based on reason, not based on 'divine revelation'. They believed they were inalienable because they were a basic part of nature (whether or whether not a God created nature), not because of "some divine degree which the creator revealed only to them)".
“Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, then that of blindfolded fear.”
~Founding Father Thomas Jefferson
Because of the intersection between natural law and natural rights, it has been cited as a component in the United States Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States, as well as in the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen. Declarationism states that the founding of the United States is based on Natural law.
http://www.wikiwand.com/en/Natural_law
Let's quit talking about religions for a moment, 90sAce and let's just look at some facts and interpretations.
Psychopaths (which has absolutely nothing to do with succes or no succes) are more eager to survive than non-psychopaths in a wild "survival of the fittest" scenario.
That's actually incorrect and shows a strong lack of understanding of what 'survival of the fittest' actually means.
In evolution survival of the fittest refers to the being the most resourceful and being able to adapt the best to one's surroundings - the "pop culture" rendition of the term portrays it as the "fiercest" or the "most brutal" always surviving, but this is completely false.
If you look at animals for example, humans are not the strongest, or the fiercest (ex. we don't have the killing power of a lion, or the muscular density of a chimpanzee) - we survived and dominated the other species because of our resourcefulness and intelligence, not because of our "ferocity".
Think if it as "brute force" versus "cunning and strategy" - the battle of Thermopolye as an example - the 300 Spartans may not have had the "brute force" as the vast Persian army, but were able to hold them at bay because of their superior strategy and discipline.
Psychopaths are statistically much less likely to thrive in the human world than normal individual, the extremely charismatic ones like Hitler and Stalin who acquire great power are very rare exceptions. The average psychopath is statistically much more likely to wind up in prison or be unemployed. This is fact.
Psychopaths are also less 'eager to survive' in the full sense of the word - they're more eager to acquire raw material 'pleasures' (this is due to the inability to bond with others in normal situation - which results in chemical deficiencies that they attempt to 'compensate for'). Psychopaths also are often lacking in judgment and make impulsive decisions which harm their chance of survival compared to that of a normal person (ex. a temperamental psychopath shoots a person over a simple insult, resulting in him being sentenced to deat in court).
In human terms, as I've explained - actual 'survival' in a social sense involves creation of a positive legacy (while in other animals, this can only be done through reproduction), not simply acquiring material gratification anyway - very few of them achieve any influence in life beyond the memories of their victims.
You could even say that immorality gets rewarded and therefore seems the logical way to go under pure individual evolution.
And you'd be completely wrong to say it. Unless you're talking about "other animals" (ex. carnivorous animals like crocodiles or Lions which have to 'prey' on wild animals to survive) - but using human standards of 'morality' in reference.to completely different species is apples/oranges.
Most evidence shows that positive social behavior is the most evolutionary successful. You need to learn the basics of evolution before discussing 'survival of the fittest' again.
I took a class in moral philosophy last year and this was pointed out as one of the main curiosities when talking about the inner morality of humans and why it exists. Why do most people have "moral instincts" when it doesn't seem interesting on an evolutionary level?
There aren't any actual examples of this - all moral instincts do have an evolutionary benefit - it sounds like you're basing this claim off of a false strawman about what "survival of the fittest means". That's why I'd learn from experts, scientists, etc, rather than some nutty professor in a "moral philosophy" class.
As I mentioned before, there are 4 main pleasure chemicals in the brain - one of these (oxytocin) can only be achieved through positive social interaction - and each of them does serve an evolutionary (as well as a 'moral' purpose'). A psychopath therefore would be deficient in this chemical, and therefore less healthy, and 'addicted' to chemical highs from material pursuits.
So yes, positive and altruistic behavior does have a practical and survival benefit (people who are socially isolated or anti-social are chemically deficient, and live much lower lifespans). Much more so than the short-term 'benefits' a sociopath might achieve (ex. through rape, robbery, etc). There is no 'moral behavior' which conflicts with reality or science, and when it does, it's the culture that decided that behavior is 'moral' which is at at fault, not reality itself
There are several theories about this subject.
The most convincing one for me was that we might have partly "invented" morality because it's a necessary tool if we want to live together in groups. We have to punish the ones that prey on the others or otherwise we just end up in chaos and an environment that noone can or wants to live in. A common sense of rationality (in a certain group) imposes moral rules on a specific society and it gets transferred to other generations through the ways in which children are raised, educated, etc.
There are various kinds of interpretations of morality in different cultures both throughout history and all over the world today, though. In certain cultures it's a necessity to kill someone at times to show your power and to let people know that they shouldn't mess with you, while in other cultures killing someone is (almost) always strongly condemned.
"Morality" itself wasn't 'invented' - it does in a sense exist in animals, as in animals do have an instinctive order and standard of behavior (they don't just 'kill each other or murder offspring right and left') - the behavioral concept comes from evolutionary biology.
The actual 'moral systems' we have invented are diverse - the trend seems to be that some (particuarily authoritarian systems like in North Korea) benefit only a select few at the top, at the expense of others - while other moral systems benefit people as a whole, and respect the rights of every man - the latter seem to be the most successful (which is why Western nations like the United States are so far ahead of totalitarian nations like Saudi Arabia and North Korea).
We can rationalize and argue about what system is the most ethical, but the fact is that, when you don't believe in a higher moral force, there can never be an absolute truth.
You could simply replace "God" with an omnipresent 'force' (which isn't actually a 'sentient being' itself) and get the same conclusion. Likewise you could just as well argue that if the "God" just exists without any reason, and has no higher moral force guiding it, then there is no absolute truth - because it has no create or higher moral force guiding its actions - God's actions are therefore just a meaningless whim.
There are also things such as mathematics - no one believes that 2+2=4 only because a "God says so", for example.
On a similar note, if a belief is based purely on 'faith' rather than on things which are observable in nature - then there is no honest way to say a Jihadist's faith is any less "wrong" than that of a mainstream Christian.
In fact you could argue that the Jihadist has 'more faith' than the Christian since he's willing to kill and die for his "belief" and use this to his benefit.
"God is dead". There is no ultimate foundation you can rely on, nothing you can point to.
I'm not saying there needs to be an absolute moral truth (it would make things a lot easier, though), but the least thing you can do is recognize that there isn't one according to your view on life.
How is that so? I'm a deist and believe in a designer.
Just not a designer that 'contradicts' its own creation (by unilaterally deciding that the 'moral course' of action conflicts with the actual observable social benefits, and expecting us to believe this based simply on 'blind trust' in one of many religious leaders, all of whom claim to 'speak for God' but being unable to prove so). This puts me in line with the Founders.
Don't try to convince yourself with fallacies that there is a certain fairness to your world view, because everything will always lead to indifference in the end.
Biologically that's simply not correct. "Difference/indifference" is related to the pleasure chemicals in the brain - engaging in pessimistic thought can lead to indifference, but the problem is your presumption that believing "in a God" or not doing so immediately leads to pessimistic thought.
(Again, if God has no creator or higher power guiding it, then how can anything he does be 'good/bad', or 'right/wrong'? Unless someone created God?) If you spent enough time thinking this way you'd probably feel very indifferent.
Indifference is usually caused by a deficiency in one of these chemicals (brought on by a bad lifestyle). If it would lead you to indifference then you're likely investing too much of your sense of 'purpose' on a flaky belief which you can't validate.
As mentioned above - there are many facets of religious beliefs which are far more likely to lead to indifference.
E.X. If 'believing in Jesus' guaranteed salvation - then why not just rob, rape, and murder all you want? Just be sure to 'give your heart' to Jesus on your deathbed and you'll be Scott Free.
Be consistent and don't be hypocritical. Know where you stand for and confront yourself with it. ;)
Reason and science? As opposed to "Allah/Jesus says so... just because... and I know it's true... but I can't prove it..."? The only people need confrontation are the latter, not the former.
The claim that religious people shouldn't follow a code they can't verify. And the claim that it's fine for skeptics to do the same.
Countless others, too; we've been going at this awhile, and I'm pretty sure you haven't been saying "Holy books are folklore" over and over the whole time. You've made statements in support of that position, as well as statements about lots of other things as the discussion has branched off. I know you know this because you've given occasional, glancing replies to some of it. So it's inexplicable that you'd repeatedly ask me what I'm talking about. If I didn't already regard you as an honest person, I would literally believe you were trolling me.
My position has never been that religious people shouldn't follow a code they can't verify. My position is that the books from which those codes come are so demonstrably false as to matters of fact, so obviously a product of their age, such obvious folklore they should be dismissed, something every believer does himself until it comes to the one he's invested in. I've also argued very conventionally that all divine and metaphysical claims are speculation and virtually everything I've written has been in response to your attempts to refute this.
It is rational to adopt moral principles that reduce things we do not like once we take those things as givens. But that's different than saying the things we do not like are rational, or philosophically justifiable.
My post was directed at this specifically: Our morality may be hardwired, responsive, empathetic but it's rational in that it ensures the viability of the social unit, thus ourselves, which is why we see it exhibited in other social species.
And why should someone care about the welfare of the group beyond which the point at which it happens to benefit them?
Through an evolutionary view, as I understand it, selfless acts can lead to the viability of the group which allows for the furtherance of one's genes through kinship. It's also the case that outside the close social unit altruism seems to stop when the price to the donor becomes too costly. On a side note, altruism has been shown to stimulate pleasure centers in the brain; it makes us feel good.
Those things aren't "explained" by psychology, culture, and contemplation, because those things first need an impulse to contemplate about. It is rationality applied to preconceptions about what is desirable, not rationality about what is desirable in the first place. I'll grant this is an easy distinction to miss, but it's an important one.
You should read the article, but I think the point is other factors can contribute to actions that seem anomalous even in an evolutionary view such as emotions, guilt, belief systems, ideology, etc, that not every thing we think or do is based directly on adaptation. People kill themselves, for example.
I can't possibly see why this would pose any problem. The fact that moral impulses have survival benefits makes sense regardless of whether or not we're sophisticated animals, or God's own creations. The former because of selection (we wouldn't survive if we didn't have this) and the latter because it would be pointless for God to endow creatures with instincts that would immediately eradicate them.
I think the point is that holy books seem to reserve moral behavior for humans but this doesn't seem to be the case.
You literally said the exact opposite of this
It wouldn't be a problem anyway, however: the fact that people don't always live up to moral standards doesn't mean they do no exist, any more than breaking the rules of a game means it has no rules.
What I said, or at least meant, is that we seem to share a basic morality, not that all morals are held by everyone. As to your other point, I'm not sure how it applies.
If you examine any of these in detail you will invariably find that they are not examples of different morality, but differences about either a) facts or b) priorities. For example, differing views on sexual conduct can be explained by placing varying levels of emphasis on discretion or honor relative to autonomy or pleasure. All four of those things are good, in and of themselves, and culture mores about sexual conduct reflect how we reconcile it when they appear to conflict. They reflect differences in priority, not in core morality.
Slavery, on the other hand, has often been based on a difference in fact. Slaveholders throughout history often make the excuse that the people they enslaved were inferior. This is wrong, but it is wrong on a factual level. And the fact that such excuses have been made implicitly acknowledges that you can't just enslave whoever for any reason. If you could, no excuse would be necessary.
Your answer here is both odd and kind of amusing. Why would a god allow priorities or subjective understandings interfere with his implanted and so very important moral dictates so that vicious, painful and deadly immoral practices could be perpetuated for years? If he made himself clear with regard to murder and stealing why not slavery and sexual acts? Of course, if you've read The Bible we all know that in fact he has. That morality is not altogether universal but can be subjective, cultural, flexible, modified is demonstrative of it coming from us not an objective law maker.
The most telling thing about this is that you clearly regard psychopathy and brain malformation as wrong, rather than just different. You regard these things as defects. But why? Brain malformation, sure, but psychopathy? I can't think of any purely rational, secular reason to think of psychopathy as a defect. The studies I've seen suggest such people are disproportionately successful.
My point is not that psychopathy or brain malfunction is wrong, but that if morality is so divinely important why does a god allow it to be absent or disregarded through a perpetuated biology.
I wanted to add that in terms of seeing morality as evolutionary rather than divine there's identical twin studies that show levels of conscientiousness are determined genetically. Why would a divine morality have degrees of variability based on genes?
My position has never been that religious people shouldn't follow a code they can't verify.
Not to mention it goes beyond just some individual 'following a personal code they can't verify' - it extents to passing laws and regulations which affect lots of people based on this code which they can't verify, and suggesting that our policies should be based on this based just on blind trust that "these people are right".
For example, the advocates who want creationism to be taught in classrooms alongside evolution despite evolution having the overwhelming physical evidence, and creationism not.
That doesn't mean that it "cannot be demonstrated"
Irrelevant. The point is that the statement does not support your claim that it's based on a weighing of facts or a calculation as to benefit. It is self-evident from mere existence.
How could it be otherwise? There's no secular basis for saying that people are "created equal" in a technical sense. They are born wildly different from one another with varying levels of skill and capacity in all ways. So either the document is referring to some non-empirical standard of quality and morality, or else it's a convenient lie adopted for the sake of governing.
they were simply saying it was evident enough that it "didn't need to" in their opinion.
No, they really weren't. If they wanted to say that, the word "evident" by itself would've done the trick. The fact that they specifically added a qualifier proves they meant something else. It would be pointless to add a qualifying word that left the definition exactly the same as if they hadn't used it.
Evident means what you're describing--obviously true. Self-evident means obviously true without any proof or facts. That's what the phrase means (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/self-evident), and it's a straightforwarding reading of the text, to boot. Your alternate interpretation, on the other hand, requires that you believe they added "self" for absolutely no reason.
Yes, the creator of... nature. :cool: Of which humans are one part of.
Except you didn't say the "Creator of nature." You said nature itself.
The majority of the Founders were deists
Nope. Some were deists, some were Christians, but most were something between the two. Even the most skeptical of them (Franklin and Jefferson, usually) made mentions of God's "providence" at various occasions, which implies a personal God on at least some level.
That said, this is irrelevant, because what they personally believed and what they chose to put in the text are two different things.
they believed in a creator but did not believe that he in anyway conflicted with the nature he created
Conflicting with one's desires is the whole point of a moral code. A code that tells us to do exactly the things we want to already is useless.
The came to their conclusion about the 'rights' of man based on reason, not based on 'divine revelation'. They believed they were inalienable because they were a basic part of nature (whether or whether not a God created nature), not because of "some divine degree which the creator revealed only to them)".
Straw man, never said it was based in revelation, nor does being based in reason in any way defend your initial (but apparently now abandoned) claim that it was based on "observable facts."
Cob is more than capable of defending himself on all these points, but I'd like to respond to a few of the things directed at him:
Psychopaths are statistically much less likely to thrive in the human world than normal individual, the extremely charismatic ones like Hitler and Stalin who acquire great power are very rare exceptions. The average psychopath is statistically much more likely to wind up in prison or be unemployed. This is fact.
So it's only immoral to be a psychopath if you're not good enough at it?
You could simply replace "God" with an omnipresent 'force' (which isn't actually a 'sentient being' itself) and get the same conclusion.
No you couldn't; whatever morality is, it clearly is not a law in the sense of being a mere force, because it can be disobeyed. Therefore, any objective morality (if it exists) has to be a preference or will, which requires sentience. And a Force that has a Will is pretty much exactly what we mean when we use the word "God."
How is that so? I'm a deist and believe in a designer.
Out of curiosity, why do you believe this, and how long have you believed it?
My position has never been that religious people shouldn't follow a code they can't verify.
What does this mean, then?
In terms of religion, you can choose to take that proverbial leap of faith, but why believe and devote yourself to something that may be mistaken?
This is a rhetorical question, isn't it? A rhetorical question suggesting that religious people should not "believe and devote [themselves] to something that may be mistaken." How is this not questioning believers? How is this not saying they shouldn't follow these beliefs?
I'll be happy to respond to the rest, but I'm asking about this first, because I've been trying to get a straight answer on this point for a dozen pages already.
Cob is more than capable of defending himself on all these points, but I'd like to respond to a few of the things directed at him:
So it's only immoral to be a psychopath if you're not good enough at it?
It's not biologically possible - even acquiring an unlimited amount of 'material success' through psychopathic behavior, it's impossible to 'cancel out' the negative affects. The brain needs positive social contribution to be happy, which isn't achievable though anti-social behavior.
No you couldn't; whatever morality is, it clearly is not a law in the sense of being a mere force, because it can be disobeyed. Therefore, any objective morality (if it exists) has to be a preference or will, which requires sentience. And a Force that has a Will is pretty much exactly what we mean when we use the word "God."
Which ever way you go, you essentially arrive at the same dead end.
If someone believes life has meaning, they might say it's because God gave it meaning - but if asked why God exists; who created God, what moral authority he answers to, etc, the answer would boil down to "he just does".
"Life has meaning because God created it, God exists because he simply does."
Versus
"Life has meaning because... it simply does."
Out of curiosity, why do you believe this, and how long have you believed it?
I believe it as a personal preference - anything which occurred before the known universe is totally up to speculation, so if someone believes there is a God who brought every thing into being then that's a perfectly valid opinion. The problem is when people claim that 'supernatural' phenomenon contradicts what's known in the universe.
What does this mean, then?
This is a rhetorical question, isn't it? A rhetorical question suggesting that religious people should not "believe and devote [themselves] to something that may be mistaken." How is this not questioning believers? How is this not saying they shouldn't follow these beliefs?
I'll be happy to respond to the rest, but I'm asking about this first, because I've been trying to get a straight answer on this point for a dozen pages already.
How many times must I say that statement was made solely to assuage hurt feelings I thought I'd caused, that it's not what I think. My position is crystal clear and I've stated it ad nauseam.
As to your other responses, I'm not sure they're really necessary. I think there's ample evidence to demonstrate morality is fundamentally evolutionary in origin and I've seen nothing to counter this. At best, the theist can claim a god used the evolutionary process--in which case there's nothing to debate--or nothing has been proven which does nothing to advance his case for a divine morality. In fact, and as I've said before, the divine gaps argument, the argument from incredulity, has a terribly failed history. As to the debate in general, and as I said months ago, I think it's become circular and unproductive. If there's anything that interests me at this point it's what you and other highly intelligent individuals actually believe because it seems to me there's a lot of flexibility, selectivity and proactive interpretation occurring in regard to your holy texts.
Pussy Galore
03-11-15, 03:49 AM
I haven't watched threw the multiple pages of this thread, I only watched the initial question asked by Yoda in 2002 which is: Have we discovered or invented mathematics?
I am only asking myself why does that prove or disprove the existence of god?
And for answering the question I'd say that mathematics is the result of logic and is pretty much the more pefect field of knowledge we can find with reason, pure reason. So with a very humble and not so sure opinion I'd say that we have discovered it, but I don't think it's a physical entity that exists, it is just the result of the human mind that is not necessarily created by god. There are several neuroscience theories on the human brain, an interesting one is presented in the 1980 film by Alain Resnais ''Mon Oncle d'Amérique''
As for my position on religion it is infuenced by 2 great philosophers and it is the following: Immanuel Kant (which was religious himself) said that there are question that can't be answered by human knowledge, it is beyong what we can know. Among that is the existence of free will and of te existence of god. So, at least for now with our current technological knowledge, we can't know for sure if god exists or not. That would be my premice, I can't prove or disprove the existence of god. That being said, I can't imagine living my life based on an hypothetical entity that might or might not exist. Bertrand Russell has this wonderful quote that sums it up very well: ''If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time''
It's not biologically possible - even acquiring an unlimited amount of 'material success' through psychopathic behavior, it's impossible to 'cancel out' the negative affects. The brain needs positive social contribution to be happy, which isn't achievable though anti-social behavior.
Based on what? A landmark study that managed to enlist Stalin and somehow effectively distill different types of satisfaction into a common unit for comparison?
Which ever way you go, you essentially arrive at the same dead end.
If someone believes life has meaning, they might say it's because God gave it meaning - but if asked why God exists; who created God, what moral authority he answers to, etc, the answer would boil down to "he just does".
"Life has meaning because God created it, God exists because he simply does."
Versus
"Life has meaning because... it simply does."
Three problems with this:
1) You've been arguing that the alternative beliefs you've presented are more objective and more rational, not equally so. We went through this whole routine earlier, with the exact same result (you walking back the claim by saying the secular alternative wasn't worse), and when I pointed out the concession you stopped responding.
2) Neither meaning nor morality are like physical laws; unlike gravity, they can be disobeyed or ignored. Therefore, if they exist, they cannot exist physically. If they exist, they must exist as preferences. And to have a preference, you have to have sentience. Which means we're right back at the idea of God.
3) They're not equally defensible; disputing the latter is much, much easier than disputing the former. If you believe God exists, then you'd be very hard pressed to explain why His concept of meaning or morality should not take priority over your own. You'll end up in a philosophical thicket very quickly. At best, you'll arrive at a definitional paradox.
But on the other hand, it's quite easy to dispute the idea that life has meaning "just because," because you don't need to present an alternative or trump the source of the idea: you can just say it doesn't exist.
I believe it as a personal preference - anything which occurred before the known universe is totally up to speculation, so if someone believes there is a God who brought every thing into being then that's a perfectly valid opinion.
What does it mean to believe something as a personal preference? That you don't have sufficient evidence for it, but you're just guessing/like to believe it?
The problem is when people claim that 'supernatural' phenomenon contradicts what's known in the universe.
Something would not be supernatural if it did not contradict some universal law in some way. So this quote actually means "the problem with the supernatural is that it's supernatural."
How many times must I say that statement was made solely to assuage hurt feelings I thought I'd caused, that it's not what I think. My position is crystal clear and I've stated it ad nauseam.
You really haven't, though. Certainly not ad nauseam. I explained why here (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=1265655#post1265655):
I don't think you've ever said it, actually. I presented these things as contradictions maybe 5-6 times, and at no point did you say "I didn't mean the first remark." You offered contradictions without explanations ("I don't think it holds") or non-sequiturs about it being an olive branch (which is not mutually exclusive with it being a contradiction), but never that simple response.
In fact, in this post (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=1264422#post1264422) I explicitly ask "Does 'academic position' mean you don't actually believe it?," and you didn't even say so then! I'm not sure you're saying so now, either. Look at the quote above: you say you made the remark "not because I believe it," which isn't the same thing as saying you don't. It's just a statement about how you hoped it would be received.
So please, at long last, make your meaning plain: do you believe it or not?
So here are the problems I'm trying to solve right now:
1. Why repeatedly rephrase the question to be about your intent, rather than your belief? "I didn't say that because I believe it..." is distinct from "I don't believe it."
2. Why be so cagey? I mentioned this contradiction dozens of posts ago, and at one point even asked you flat-out if you didn't actually believe it--and you still didn't say so! Even if this was your position all along, you resisted saying so for an inexplicably long time. Why?
3. You also said, more recently (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=1266586#post1266586), that you "don't think any conclusions about anything should be based on belief." Doesn't this conflict with what you're saying now? Is it okay to believe in things you can't verify, or not?
I'm kinda fuzzy on how such an obviously rhetorical question could possibly be a peace offering, anyway, but the three issues above should be enough to clear things up, if answered.
Based on what? A landmark study that managed to enlist Stalin and somehow effectively distill different types of satisfaction into a common unit for comparison?
Based on biology.
Three problems with this:
1) You've been arguing that the alternative beliefs you've presented are more objective and more rational, not equally so. We went through this whole routine earlier, with the exact same result (you walking back the claim by saying the secular alternative wasn't worse), and when I pointed out the concession you stopped responding.
No I mentioned that the beliefs have a much lower risk factor than beliefs based purely on blind faith.
Just like buying a car from a dealer with lots of positive feedback is less risky than buying a car from someone on Craiglist - who can't even show pictures of the car, but expects you to just 'trust him' and hand over all your money.
2) Neither meaning nor morality are like physical laws; unlike gravity, they can be disobeyed or ignored. Therefore, if they exist, they cannot exist physically. If they exist, they must exist as preferences. And to have a preference, you have to have sentience. Which means we're right back at the idea of God.
They exist simply as cause and effects, ingrained into our biology.
3) They're not equally defensible; disputing the latter is much, much easier than disputing the former. If you believe God exists, then you'd be very hard pressed to explain why His concept of meaning or morality should not take priority over your own.
Not necessarily - being a 'creator' doesn't automatically grant authority, outside the context of specific religions like Christianity in Islam. In older religions such as Greek mythology, the creator wasn't necessarily the one with 'authority either'.
For example, in an alternate reality an extraterrestrial being might have created the universe - but he might actually answer to a greater being who simply enlists him as the job of 'creation' - therefore he has no moral authority 'himself' over the universe, just the authority to create it.
It's also totally "possible" that a creator might end up creating something which surpasses him - much like in Sci-Fi stories where humans create robots with superior intelligence.
Or that the creator actually has a lifespan and passed away. leaving only humans in domain over the earth - the theories are endless, and if they're only based on faith versus evidence, they're all equally valid.
You'll end up in a philosophical thicket very quickly. At best, you'll arrive at a definitional paradox.
But on the other hand, it's quite easy to dispute the idea that life has meaning "just because," because you don't need to present an alternative or trump the source of the idea: you can just say it doesn't exist.
Not really - even it wouldn't have "meaning" if one theorized that if God has no authority or morals that he has to answer to, then anything he did is therefore 'meaningless' - it would just be meaningless whim of a supernatural dictator who does things with no rhyme or reason - not anymore 'meaningful' than a North Korean blindly doing the work of Kim Jong Il.
What does it mean to believe something as a personal preference? That you don't have sufficient evidence for it, but you're just guessing/like to believe it?
It's not something 'provable' one way or another, so believe that there is "some god somewhere" which brought everything into existence is totally valid. It doesn't require 'evidence' unless it's suggesting that you can 'prove' it.
Something would not be supernatural if it did not contradict some universal law in some way. So this quote actually means "the problem with the supernatural is that it's supernatural."
That's incorrect, deism only theorizes that a higher power brought the universe into existence; not that it ever intercedes with existence directly.
So a diestic diety is like Enzo Ferrari, while the universe is the Ferrari - anything which happens in the universe is a direct result of it's mechanics that were pre-designed into it.
While the 'theistic' view would be similar to claiming that "A Ferrari can go over 200mph because Enzo Ferrari performs a magic ritual every time someone steps on the gas pedal".
Based on biology.
Based on what evidence? There is no study substantiating the idea that you can equally compare different types of happiness objectively and that it is biologically impossible to obtain more one way than another. All your descriptions of how biology and evolution "work" are speculation.
No I mentioned that the beliefs have a much lower risk factor than beliefs based purely on blind faith.
There is no "risk factor" in this context--you say they're both philosophical dead-ends.
They exist simply as cause and effects, ingrained into our biology.
This is gibberish. It's "cost/benefit is a verifiable principle" all over again, in terms of terminological confusion. Something can not "exist as cause and effects." It can exist as a law, and that law can be demonstrated through cause and effect.
The logic is pretty simple: we know morality isn't an objective force because people can choose to disobey it. If it's not a force then it must either be a description or a will. If it's a description it has no compulsory power--it's simply saying "if you do this, you get this," but that doesn't make doing things right or wrong. It's a map, not a destination. On the other hand, if it's a will, that implies sentience. And a Sentience that has a Will is God.
Not necessarily - being a 'creator' doesn't automatically grant authority, outside the context of specific religions like Christianity in Islam.
It does if the thing you created is an entire standard/concept, and the "authority" is the authority to define it. What you're doing (and I used this analogy earlier) is akin to telling Alexander Graham Bell how his invention is nothing like a telephone, even though you only know what a telephone is because he invented it in the first place.
Your own position undermines this argument, anyway: you argue that morality is moral simply because it provides benefits. Leaving aside the obvious problems with this (link to the last round of unanswered questions available on request), why wouldn't this grant God the same authority? After all, any being powerful and knowledgable enough to create us figures to know far more about what's good for us than we do. And they'd certainly be much better at tracing out the long-term implications of various standards. So what rationale could you have to declare yourself a better arbiter of those positive benefits than the Being that created you and them in the first place?
Not really - even it wouldn't have "meaning" if one theorized that if God has no authority or morals that he has to answer to, then anything he did is therefore 'meaningless' - it would just be meaningless whim of a supernatural dictator who does things with no rhyme or reason - not anymore 'meaningful' than a North Korean blindly doing the work of Kim Jong Il.
Except for the part where Kim Jong Il did not create the country or its people, or endow them with any notion of anything.
Whether you agree or not, there's still no comparison. At worst, defining meaning and morality based on the Creator of the concepts is paradoxical. Saying there's meaning "just because," however, doesn't even rise to the level of paradox. It's just straight-up circular, and there's no reason to believe it over the far simpler explanation that meaning, in a secular worldview, does not exist.
It's not something 'provable' one way or another, so believe that there is "some god somewhere" which brought everything into existence is totally valid. It doesn't require 'evidence' unless it's suggesting that you can 'prove' it.
That's not what I asked. I asked why you believe it. You have a reason for believing it, y es?
That's incorrect, deism only theorizes that a higher power brought the universe into existence; not that it ever intercedes with existence directly.
Oy, another round of Mutilate the English Language. "Supernatural" means outside or beyond the natural. A supernatural thing does not have to interfere with anything physical to be supernatural. A deistic God is still supernatural.
A lot of time has been wasted based on these sloppy, idiosyncratic definitions. You say "morality" when you mainly mean "survival." You say "survival" when you really mean "survival plus two other things with three other exceptions." And now you say "supernatural" when you mean "a supernatural entity which directly intercedes into the physical world."
Please choose your words more carefully. It's your responsibility to make yourself clear and say what you mean, not mine to challenge it until you eventually reveal that you're using some made-up definition.
So a diestic diety is like Enzo Ferrari, while the universe is the Ferrari - anything which happens in the universe is a direct result of it's mechanics that were pre-designed into it.
While the 'theistic' view would be similar to claiming that "A Ferrari can go over 200mph because Enzo Ferrari performs a magic ritual every time someone steps on the gas pedal".
Er, no, lots of theists (the majority, I'm fairly certain) take the first view, as well. Islam is the only major religion I can think of that regards all physical workings as being explicitly enacted by God (hence the repeated use of the addendum In sa Allāh: "God willing").
Based on what evidence? There is no study substantiating the idea that you can equally compare different types of happiness objectively and that it is biologically impossible to obtain more one way than another. All your descriptions of how biology and evolution "work" are speculation.
They're chemical deficiencies - gaining one chemical doesn't "make up" for the lack of another. Just like having plenty of food won't stop you from dying from dehydration.
There is no "risk factor" in this context--you say they're both philosophical dead-ends.
There is risk if it involves personal investment or choices with verifiable, real world harm - such as participating in Jihad - or donating one's entire life savings to a charismatic cult leader who claims to be Jesus incarnate
This is gibberish. It's "cost/benefit is a verifiable principle" all over again, in terms of terminological confusion. Something can not "exist as cause and effects." It can exist as a law, and that law can be demonstrated through cause and effect.
Bad behavior leads to harmful effects, which is why it's "bad" to begin with.
The logic is pretty simple: we know morality isn't an objective force because people can choose to disobey it.
The cause and effect are objectively verifiable.
If it's not a force then it must either be a description or a will. If it's a description it has no compulsory power--it's simply saying "if you do this, you get this," but that doesn't make doing things right or wrong.
The effects are what make the things right or wrong. It's a map, not a destination.
On the other hand, if it's a will, that implies sentience. And a Sentience that has a Will is God.
That wouldn't make it 'right' except from a "might makes right" perspective (ex. if Allah was real and declared killing infidels was 'right', then so be it) - so it would be subjective to the whim of some supernatural dictator, rather than objective - as are actual cause and effects.
It does if the thing you created is an entire standard/concept, and the "authority" is the authority to define it. What you're doing (and I used this analogy earlier) is akin to telling Alexander Graham Bell how his invention is nothing like a telephone, even though you only know what a telephone is because he invented it in the first place.
If he'd lived under a monarch who had forced him to design the phone under penalty of execution - then it wouldn't be "his", nor would he have any authority over what to do with it - he simply had the authority to design it.
Your own position undermines this argument, anyway: you argue that morality is moral simply because it provides benefits.
Simply? Again, as opposed to what - because someone who know one can prove exists supposedly "says so"?
You could just replace "God" with "Elvis" and one wouldn't be any more valid than the other, since they're simply based on blind faith.
Leaving aside the obvious problems with this (link to the last round of unanswered questions available on request), why wouldn't this grant God the same authority? After all, any being powerful and knowledgable enough to create us figures to know far more about what's good for us than we do.
Not necessarily so, and since there's no actual example in nature to compare this to - the Sci-Fi example of a human creating a robot or AI which became more intelligent than its creator comes to mind.
And they'd certainly be much better at tracing out the long-term implications of various standards. So what rationale could you have to declare yourself a better arbiter of those positive benefits than the Being that created you and them in the first place?
What rationale is there for a member of the bourgeoisie to criticize the actions of his President? Who is he to think he knows better than Barack Obama or George Bush? They're politicians with a lifetime of experience in the political arena
Except for the part where Kim Jong Il did not create the country or its people, or endow them with any notion of anything.
Then if Kim invented human cloning and was able to create humans in a lab from scratch, then starving them and sentencing them to torture and death and gulags would be A-OK - because apparently might makes right
Whether you agree or not, there's still no comparison. At worst, defining meaning and morality based on the Creator of the concepts is paradoxical. Saying there's meaning "just because," however, doesn't even rise to the level of paradox. It's just straight-up circular, and there's no reason to believe it over the far simpler explanation that meaning, in a secular worldview, does not exist.
I'd say of those two options however, the secular one would still be less pessimistic. As even "meaning doesn't exist" is still a better alternative than "'morality' is only defined by the whims of a sociopathic, genocidal tyrant".
That's not what I asked. I asked why you believe it. You have a reason for believing it, y es?
I'd say the intricacy of the world makes me believe it.
Oy, another round of Mutilate the English Language. "Supernatural" means outside or beyond the natural. A supernatural thing does not have to interfere with anything physical to be supernatural. A deistic God is still supernatural.
The God himself would be supernatural, since creation of matter, energy, etc is beyond the realm of our natural world.
However nothing which occurs within the context of the universe itself would be "supernatural". E.x. Lighting is caused by electric currents - not by Zeus throwing a temper tantrum.
A lot of time has been wasted based on these sloppy, idiosyncratic definitions. You say "morality" when you mainly mean "survival." You say "survival" when you really mean "survival plus two other things with three other exceptions." And now you say "supernatural" when you mean "a supernatural entity which directly intercedes into the physical world."
The differences are pretty well defined - someone believing that some intelligent being brought the universe into existence is well understood to be different from believing that natural phenomenon within the universe itself are "supernatural".
Please choose your words more carefully. It's your responsibility to make yourself clear and say what you mean, not mine to challenge it until you eventually reveal that you're using some made-up definition.
Er, no, lots of theists (the majority, I'm fairly certain) take the first view, as well. Islam is the only major religion I can think of that regards all physical workings as being explicitly enacted by God (hence the repeated use of the addendum In sa Allāh: "God willing").
Islam believes that Satan is real, that Jesus was a Prophet of god who ascended into heaven, etc. Fundamentalists in Islam also believe evolution is false and that the universe was created according to genesis - so no it's theistic indeed. None of those beliefs would be compatible with deism.
They're chemical deficiencies - gaining one chemical doesn't "make up" for the lack of another.
You said it was impossible for such a person to be happy. Show me the evidence of that. Because I'm betting that all you've got is some general research about which chemicals are released during which types of activities, which would in no way defend your speculation about how this translates to overall happiness, especially in highly successful sociopaths.
There is risk if it involves personal investment or choices with verifiable, real world harm - such as participating in Jihad - or donating one's entire life savings to a charismatic cult leader who claims to be Jesus incarnate
Either you're ignoring the argument, or you don't understand it. Let's try again: if they're both philosophical dead ends, then they're both irrational, and therefore one is not "more rational" than the other.
Bad behavior leads to harmful effects, which is why it's "bad" to begin with.
Read the quote again, because this isn't a response to it. I'll repeat it: cause and effect is not a thing. Laws are things. Cause and effect is how we measure and demonstrate them. You're not positing an actual moral standard, you're just appropriating the word to describe your own.
The cause and effect are objectively verifiable.
First, I said objective force. Something is not an objective force just because it has an effect that can be objectively measured.
Second, how are they objectively verifiable? Please, show me your advanced formula for tracing out the long-term implications of various social conventions.
If he'd lived under a monarch who had forced him to design the phone under penalty of execution - then it wouldn't be "his", nor would he have any authority over what to do with it - he simply had the authority to design it.
This makes zero sense as a response, for at least three reasons.
First, because under this (bizarre) hypothetical, you still wouldn't have any basis from which to redefine "telephone" more than Bell. Second, because "creator" in this case would simply refer to the being above the designer; all the same issues of authority would still apply. And third, because this isn't your argument. You're not arguing that God has no moral authority because there might be another, stronger God, so this possibility would not actually defend your alternative theory in any way.
Not necessarily so, and since there's no actual example in nature to compare this to - the Sci-Fi example of a human creating a robot or AI which became more intelligent than its creator comes to mind.
Did you seriously just dismiss a hypothetical because it's not observable in nature and then, in the very same sentence, make a hypothetical argument about science fiction?
What rationale is there for a member of the bourgeoisie to criticize the actions of his President? Who is he to think he knows better than Barack Obama or George Bush? They're politicians with a lifetime of experience in the political arena
This is a really bad analogy, easily dismantled in any number of ways. For one, knowing more than someone is different than knowing, say, everything. For another, the experience a politician has is in navigating politics, not necessarily in governing effectively. To the contrary, lots of politics is about cobbling together coalitions that necessary exclude people outside of those coalitions.
Then if Kim invented human cloning and was able to create humans in a lab from scratch, then starving them and sentencing them to torture and death and gulags would be A-OK - because apparently might makes right
Try reading what I said again. Particularly the part where I make reference to endowing people with the concepts themselves. Also, "creating" someone in a birthing/cloning sense is not the same as creating, say, their entire race and the very universe they inhabit. So no, it isn't "might makes right": it's "you can't dispute the meaning of something with the very thing that you got it from in the first place." Not as pithy, and doesn't rhyme, but that's the actual argument.
I'd say of those two options however, the secular one would still be less pessimistic. As even "meaning doesn't exist" is still a better alternative than "'morality' is only defined by the whims of a sociopathic, genocidal tyrant".
Okay, but that wasn't the issue. The issue was that one of the explanations is a lot easier to defend as self-justifying than the other. Saying God is the source of our standards is more internally consistent than the idea that an abstract, non-sentient idea just is. So unless you pick your beliefs primarily based on how optimistic they make you feel, this isn't a response to that.
I'd say the intricacy of the world makes me believe it.
Understood.
The God himself would be supernatural, since creation of matter, energy, etc is beyond the realm of our natural world.
However nothing which occurs within the context of the universe itself would be "supernatural". E.x. Lighting is caused by electric currents - not by Zeus throwing a temper tantrum.
Er, yes, I know. The point is that this is a distinction not automatically implied by the word "supernatural." And that your objection to "supernatural" thing is not actually an objection at all, since you're objecting to anything supernatural out of hand.
The differences are pretty well defined - someone believing that some intelligent being brought the universe into existence is well understood to be different from believing that natural phenomenon within the universe itself are "supernatural".
All true, but I said literally nothing to suggest otherwise. What I did say is that you're routinely misusing words in confusing, idiosyncratic ways, and that you should probably stop doing that.
Islam believes that Satan is real, that Jesus was a Prophet of god who ascended into heaven, etc. Fundamentalists in Islam also believe evolution is false and that the universe was created according to genesis - so no it's theistic indeed. None of those beliefs would be compatible with deism.
Huh? Nobody said Islam was compatible with deism. Read the post again.
Your responses seem to be less and less about the things they're ostensibly responding to.
You said it was impossible for such a person to be happy. Show me the evidence of that. Because I'm betting that all you've got is some general research about which chemicals are released during which types of activities, which would in no way defend your speculation about how this translates to overall happiness, especially in highly successful sociopaths.
Highly successful sociopaths are not 'successful' in areas of normal human companionship, 'success' in one area such as money doesn't override the chemical deficiency. You wouldn't ever see millionaires taking their lives other wise.
Not to mention sociopaths are less likely to be successful around the board.
Either you're ignoring the argument, or you don't understand it. Let's try again: if they're both philosophical dead ends, then they're both irrational, and therefore one is not "more rational" than the other.
Read the quote again, because this isn't a response to it. I'll repeat it: cause and effect is not a thing. Laws are things. Cause and effect is how we measure and demonstrate them. You're not positing an actual moral standard, you're just appropriating the word to describe your own.
The moral standard is defined by biology. So the cause and effect would determine how moral an action is.
First, I said objective force. Something is not an objective force just because it has an effect that can be objectively measured.
Second, how are they objectively verifiable? Please, show me your advanced formula for tracing out the long-term implications of various social conventions.
This makes zero sense as a response, for at least three reasons.
First, because under this (bizarre) hypothetical, you still wouldn't have any basis from which to redefine "telephone" more than Bell. Second, because "creator" in this case would simply refer to the being above the designer; all the same issues of authority would still apply. And third, because this isn't your argument. You're not arguing that God has no moral authority because there might be another, stronger God, so this possibility would not actually defend your alternative theory in any way.
Did you seriously just dismiss a hypothetical because it's not observable in nature and then, in the very same sentence, make a hypothetical argument about science fiction?
Those are actually closer to legal concepts, such as copyright - but copyright is a human legal invention and didn't originally even exists. So it's not automatically implied that the 'creator' has full authority over the creation - in fact that's not the norm in most modern situations (ex. the creator of films or music, is usually not the one who has complete control over its production).
The hypothetical was "a creation having more intelligence than its creator" - since no one has ever created 'intelligent life' I had no other analogy.
This is a really bad analogy, easily dismantled in any number of ways. For one, knowing more than someone is different than knowing, say, everything. For another, the experience a politician has is in navigating politics, not necessarily in governing effectively. To the contrary, lots of politics is about cobbling together coalitions that necessary exclude people outside of those coalitions.
There's not an automatic reason to presume a creator "knows everything" - again that's only a concept in specific religions with 'omnipotent' deities.
I'd say an 'imperfect creator' makes more sense anyway, than a 'perfect creator' who intentionally left flaws in his creation.
Try reading what I said again. Particularly the part where I make reference to endowing people with the concepts themselves. Also, "creating" someone in a birthing/cloning sense is not the same as creating, say, their entire race and the very universe they inhabit. So no, it isn't "might makes right": it's "you can't dispute the meaning of something with the very thing that you got it from in the first place." Not as pithy, and doesn't rhyme, but that's the actual argument.
Then hypothetically, someone created an android that was to replicate human intelligence and emotions - by that standard then if the creator.wanted to torture and kill them just for pleasure that would be "okay" That is indeed a 'might makes right' argument.
Okay, but that wasn't the issue. The issue was that one of the explanations is a lot easier to defend as self-justifying than the other. Saying God is the source of our standards is more internally consistent than the idea that an abstract, non-sentient idea just is. So unless you pick your beliefs primarily based on how optimistic they make you feel, this isn't a response to that.
And saying God exists because.... he just does" is any different? Since God exists because... well he just does, then so do our 'moral standards' even if they're derived from God.
Your whole argument is that if someone does not believe in a god then this leads to a less optimistic view anyway, which is why it is a poorer choice right? I say of the two scenarios (ex. a completely nihilistic world with "no meaning") versus (" a despotic god like the one portrayed in the Old Testament being able to just do whatever he wants, because 'might makes right') the latter is the more pessimistic.
Highly successful sociopaths are not 'successful' in areas of normal human companionship, 'success' in one area such as money doesn't override the chemical deficiency. You wouldn't ever see millionaires taking their lives other wise.
Not to mention sociopaths are less likely to be successful around the board.
None of which is a response to what I asked or substantiates your claim. It appears you're leaping all the way from "sociopaths are less likely to be successful" to "it is biologically impossible for sociopaths to be happy." This kind of leap in logic has shown up all throughout this (and other) discussions, where rampant speculation is backed by a tiny grain of empiricism.
The moral standard is defined by biology. So the cause and effect would determine how moral an action is.
This is literally impossible. Your moral standard can't be "defined by biology" because we can disobey it, and because we often have conflicting biological impulses. The moral standard is the part that judges the impulses, not the impulses themselves. It's a judgment of biology, not biology itself. And cause and effect explains what causes get you what effects, not which effects people ought to prefer.
Those are actually closer to legal concepts, such as copyright - but copyright is a human legal invention and didn't originally even exists. So it's not automatically implied that the 'creator' has full authority over the creation - in fact that's not the norm in most modern situations (ex. the creator of films or music, is usually not the one who has complete control over its production).
This doesn't address the point in any way, shape, or form. Positing someone who "hires" Bell in this (increasingly tortured) hypothetical still wouldn't give the person the ability to question what a "telephone" was, because they only have an understanding of the word from him in the first place. It'd be like trying to tell someone a ruler wasn't a foot long, and proving it by using a ruler you made by putting it next to the first ruler.
The hypothetical was "a creation having more intelligence than its creator" - since no one has ever created 'intelligent life' I had no other analogy.
You have the option of not using an analogy. Specifically, not using an analogy that explicitly contradicts what you said earlier in the same sentence. Before the comma, you dismissed a hypothetical because it hasn't occurred in nature. After the comma, you advanced exactly that kind of hypothetical. It's a plain contradiction.
There's not an automatic reason to presume a creator "knows everything" - again that's only a concept in specific religions with 'omnipotent' deities.
Another straw man; the reason doesn't have to be "automatic." The idea that a Being can exist outside of time and possesses the power to create the known Universe strongly strongly implies a level of foresight, knowledge, and understanding that dramatically surpasses our own. The fact that this isn't necessarily so doesn't mean it isn't far more probable than the alternative, IE: a God that possesses all these abilities but is somehow dumber than the creatures it can create.
Then hypothetically, someone created an android that was to replicate human intelligence and emotions - by that standard then if the creator.wanted to torture and kill them just for pleasure that would be "okay" That is indeed a 'might makes right' argument.
That would be, sure, but that's not an accurate representation of the theistic argument. To make your analogy accurate, you'd have to also specify that whatever the creator did to the andoird was also what they had programmed the android to desire in the first place.
And saying God exists because.... he just does" is any different? Since God exists because... well he just does, then so do our 'moral standards' even if they're derived from God.
Yes, it's dramatically different, for the reasons already outlined here (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=1268791#post1268791). It's more internally consistent and the alternative is dramatically easier to question.
Your whole argument is that if someone does not believe in a god then this leads to a less optimistic view anyway, which is why it is a poorer choice right?
No, this is not any part of my argument, let alone my "whole argument." My argument that one of these ideas is true, and the other is not.
I say of the two scenarios (ex. a completely nihilistic world with "no meaning") versus (" a despotic god like the one portrayed in the Old Testament being able to just do whatever he wants, because 'might makes right') the latter is the more pessimistic.
Is optimism a factor in how you determine what's true? And if not, then what's supposed to be significant about this?
I also forgot to reiterate this question:
Second, how are they objectively verifiable? Please, show me your advanced formula for tracing out the long-term implications of various social conventions.
This is a pretty important point. Your entire position is based on the idea that you can create an objective, verifiable moral code. But if you don't have any way trace out the long-term implications of various moral customs, empirically demonstrating that they result in desirable outcomes, then it's just speculation. Which puts you in the same boat as all those allegedly gullible God-fearin' rubes.
Pussy Galore
03-13-15, 03:59 AM
I haven't read the whole exchange between you and Ace, but by that last post I am wondering if you're saying that we need religion in order to have morality. (maybe I'm wrong)
I also forgot to reiterate this question:
Second, how are they objectively verifiable? Please, show me your advanced formula for tracing out the long-term implications of various social conventions.
This is a pretty important point. Your entire position is based on the idea that you can create an objective, verifiable moral code. But if you don't have any way trace out the long-term implications of various moral customs, empirically demonstrating that they result in desirable outcomes, then it's just speculation. Which puts you in the same boat as all those allegedly gullible God-fearin' rubes.
Again it really doesn't - a person making an investment in stocks might be 'making a judgment call' and facing a possiblity of being wrong, but it's a far cry from handing over your life savings to someone claiming to be a "Nigerian prince" through a spam email.
NatashaR
03-13-15, 07:43 AM
I haven't read the whole exchange between you and Ace, but by that last post I am wondering if you're saying that we need religion in order to have morality. (maybe I'm wrong)
I don't think he's saying that... I haven't read the previous posts either and I might be wrong but I think the idea is that you can have morality without a formal moral code, religious or not. I actually agree... I think that morality and altruism stems from intelligence and the need to be social and cooperate in order to survive and have a thriving society. Of course, that's quite a simplistic way to put it. I like the way Richard Dawkins answers the question 'If there is no God, why be good?'
Posed like that, the question sounds positively ignoble. When a religious person puts it to me in this way (and many of them do), my immediate temptation is to issue the following challenge: 'Do you really mean to tell me the only reason you try to be good is to gain God's approval and reward, or to avoid his disapproval and punishment? That's not morality, that's just sucking up, applepolishing, looking over your shoulder at the great surveillance camera in the sky, or the still small wiretap inside your head, monitoring your every move, even your every base thought.' As Einstein said, 'If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed.'
Again it really doesn't - a person making an investment in stocks might be 'making a judgment call' and facing a possiblity of being wrong, but it's a far cry from handing over your life savings to someone claiming to be a "Nigerian prince" through a spam email.
Two big problems with this:
1) Admitting your entire moral code is a "judgment call" undermines everything you've said about it being objective and verifiable, even if you find it more objective than some other alternative. Most of your arguments have been based around pretending these conclusions are immutable and undeniable, but here you admit they are neither.
2) Your judgment call isn't actually any more verifiable than the believers, it's just at a different point in the process. Your "judgment call" comes in speculating about which impulses lead to which results. A believer's "judgment call" is about whether or not a given belief is likely to be true, which in turn leads them to adopt its moral code. The moral code is not accepted blindly (contra the latest of your downright risible attempts at analogy), but as a consequence of accepting the related belief.
Let's fix that analogy up a bit, since as it is it bears zero resemblance to reality: the believer is doing something more like lending money to someone they trust. And the skeptic day trader is someone who has lots of convoluted formulas to create the illusion of objectivity, even though all those numbers ultimately rest on a guess.
I don't think he's saying that... I haven't read the previous posts either and I might be wrong but I think the idea is that you can have morality without a formal moral code, religious or not.
Indeed, this is what I'm saying. The Bible says it, too. The question is not whether people can behave well without religious belief (they obviously can and do, at least in the short-term), but whether that behavior has any rational basis.
I like the way Richard Dawkins answers the question 'If there is no God, why be good?:
Posed like that, the question sounds positively ignoble. When a religious person puts it to me in this way (and many of them do), my immediate temptation is to issue the following challenge: 'Do you really mean to tell me the only reason you try to be good is to gain God's approval and reward, or to avoid his disapproval and punishment? That's not morality, that's just sucking up, applepolishing, looking over your shoulder at the great surveillance camera in the sky, or the still small wiretap inside your head, monitoring your every move, even your every base thought.' As Einstein said, 'If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed.'
Two things to note about this Dawkins quote;
First, he doesn't actually answer the question! He redirects it to be about believers.
Second, he's begging the question. Someone asks him why we should be good, and he responds by talking about how it's "ignoble" not to be. He's trying to defend his morality by merely invoking it. When a Christian tries to cite The Bible as proof of God, he rightly tears into them for their circular reasoning. But we can see here that he's all too willing to trade in the same kind of reasoning when it makes for a good sound bite.
The Sci-Fi Slob
03-13-15, 11:44 AM
Indeed, this is what I'm saying. The Bible says it, too. The question is not whether people can behave well without religious belief (they obviously can and do, at least in the short-term), but whether that behavior has any rational basis.
The Bible is no more a valid guide for morality and reason than the works of any of the later moral philosophers - Socrates, Plato, Nietzsche etc. What does belief have to do with a persons behavior? By that standard all atheists and nihilists must be sociopaths.:D
I'm not sure what you're arguing with. I was explicitly saying religious belief is not a prerequisite for moral behavior.
NatashaR
03-13-15, 11:57 AM
Yeah you're right it's not technically an answer but I find it quite funny... Anyway Dawkins is sometimes quite preachy, which can get annoying, but 'The God Delusion' was an interesting and entertaining read :)
The Sci-Fi Slob
03-13-15, 11:59 AM
I'm not sure what you're arguing with. I was explicitly saying religious belief is not a prerequisite for moral behavior.This is one of the those instances when I should have read your post more thoroughly, and deleted mine more quickly. :blush:
Lone Voice
03-13-15, 02:02 PM
New member of the forums here. Interesting read so far in this topic. I have to say, I'm generally quite outspoken about anything religion, I'm no fan of it. I already notice many people here are more literate than what I found in most other parts of the internet though,
Regarding the original topic, we didn't invent the laws of the cosmos, we did invent ways to measure them. Math is one of those ways, so I would say it is a man-made tool to learn more of the laws of the universe. I'm sure I don't really have to suggest Sagan's cosmos, or Neil deGrasse Tyson's rework of it, but I'll do it anyway, because it's a very interesting series. A must watch for the curious of mind.
The Sci-Fi Slob
03-13-15, 02:07 PM
I already notice many people here are more literate than what I found in most other parts of the internet though.
Stay away from Facebook in the future.:D
Sexy Celebrity
03-13-15, 02:33 PM
Hey, guys. Close this thread. Earlier I said to myself that if something happened (not gonna say what it is), there's a God.
It happened, so there's a God. Case closed.
Lone Voice
03-13-15, 02:55 PM
Hey, guys. Close this thread. Earlier I said to myself that if something happened (not gonna say what it is), there's a God.
It happened, so there's a God. Case closed.
If only things were ever so easy, the world would be a simple place. Probably a boring one, too.
The Bible is no more a valid guide for morality and reason than the works of any of the later moral philosophers - Socrates, Plato, Nietzsche etc. What does belief have to do with a persons behavior? By that standard all atheists and nihilists must be sociopaths.:D
The Bible's morality (even the parts which are actually good and applicable like financial responsiblity) are pretty tribal and simplistic compared to later philosophers anyway.
It was written by a very ancient, tribal culture - why it's thought to be the "be all end all" is beyond me - it's closer to a horseless carriage than a Ferrari.
NatashaR
03-14-15, 11:16 AM
The Bible's morality (even the parts which are actually good and applicable like financial responsiblity) are pretty tribal and simplistic compared to later philosophers anyway.
It was written by a very ancient, tribal culture - why it's thought to be the "be all end all" is beyond me - it's closer to a horseless carriage than a Ferrari.
A thousand years ago the mass of the population was uneducated so it wasn't too difficult to make them believe there's a bearded man in the sky watching their every move to keep them in line. They used to think that the sun revolves around the Earth so it's not so surprising that they believed the bible to be the word of god.
It had a lot of time to become ingrained in our culture and society. Most people are indoctrinated since they are born and they never question it because that's what they teach you... just believe and don't question it. Then they do the same with their children and so on.
You know, people say that (about it being a lack of education), but it really doesn't make sense if you think about it.
Ignorance is not the same thing as gullibility. And what crucial piece of information were they lacking, anyway? They knew people didn't come back from the dead. They knew virgins didn't give birth. They knew you couldn't turn water into wine, or walk on it. In fact, they specifically regarded the works of God as miracles, and you can't regard something as a miracle unless you first realize that it's outside of the scientific norm. So they understood full well that these things weren't supposed to happen.
Dismissing dozens of generations of human begins as uneducated rubes is too glib an answer. And it happens to be one that lets people today feel smart and savvy, which I suspect is the real reason it's advanced.
Yeah you're right it's not technically an answer but I find it quite funny... Anyway Dawkins is sometimes quite preachy, which can get annoying, but 'The God Delusion' was an interesting and entertaining read :)
I haven't read it, but I'm guessing "entertaining" is probably the best word for it, yes. There is, unfortunately, a massive gap between classical atheists like Bertrand Russell and modern ones like Dawkins: they're more about entertaining and polemics than serious arguments or philosophy. They specialize in pithy one-liners, ad hominem attacks, and other distinctly modern fallacies. When they go up against an actual philosopher it doesn't tend to go very well.
That said, if I didn't care about logic or philosophical rigor and was just looking for someone to say scathing things about believers, I'd go with Hitchens. He was at least wittier than the others.
This is one of the those instances when I should have read your post more thoroughly, and deleted mine more quickly. :blush:
No worries. :)
I think there are some legitimate (but very hard to answer) questions about the long-term effects of a society that abandons religion, since all the attempts to found a Godless state via revolution have ended in mass death. What we don't know is what happens (if anything) when a society is founded on theistic ideals, and then slowly loses those beliefs. Does the moral code stay, unaffected by the removal of its foundation? Or does it slowly degrade and become more susceptible to certain things? We don't know.
I think there's a decent argument to be made that something like religion is the only thing strong enough, and motivating enough, to punch through and achieve major social justice upheavals, which is why both the Civil Rights movement and abolition were explicitly and thoroughly religious. It's hard to fight to the death, or in the face of rampant injustice, for the abstract notion of a social contract.
You really haven't, though. Certainly not ad nauseam. I explained why here (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=1265655#post1265655):
I don't think you've ever said it, actually. I presented these things as contradictions maybe 5-6 times, and at no point did you say "I didn't mean the first remark." You offered contradictions without explanations ("I don't think it holds") or non-sequiturs about it being an olive branch (which is not mutually exclusive with it being a contradiction), but never that simple response.
In fact, in this post (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=1264422#post1264422) I explicitly ask "Does 'academic position' mean you don't actually believe it?," and you didn't even say so then! I'm not sure you're saying so now, either. Look at the quote above: you say you made the remark "not because I believe it," which isn't the same thing as saying you don't. It's just a statement about how you hoped it would be received.
So please, at long last, make your meaning plain: do you believe it or not?
So here are the problems I'm trying to solve right now:
1. Why repeatedly rephrase the question to be about your intent, rather than your belief? "I didn't say that because I believe it..." is distinct from "I don't believe it."
2. Why be so cagey? I mentioned this contradiction dozens of posts ago, and at one point even asked you flat-out if you didn't actually believe it--and you still didn't say so! Even if this was your position all along, you resisted saying so for an inexplicably long time. Why?
3. You also said, more recently (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=1266586#post1266586), that you "don't think any conclusions about anything should be based on belief." Doesn't this conflict with what you're saying now? Is it okay to believe in things you can't verify, or not?
I'm kinda fuzzy on how such an obviously rhetorical question could possibly be a peace offering, anyway, but the three issues above should be enough to clear things up, if answered.
Perhaps I've been too tactful in answering your question again and again although, as I said before, taken with the position I've repeated ad nauseam regarding holy books I find it odd you've found it unclear. To resolve any misapprehension let me formally state I don't believe what I said, that, while psychologically understandable, any keirkegaardian leap of faith is fanciful, wishful thinking. You've also conflated my olive branch statement with my academic position of ignorance taken to demonstrate the lack of substance in an argument from incredulity.
On another note, I wonder about the following: If I were walking along a beach and saw a tidal wave coming that many children playing by the water could not, many would accuse me of being immoral if I didn't act to ensure those children's safety. But isn't this precisely what a god/s have done for millennia with regard to tsunamis, other natural disasters, diseases, etc? Is god/s, therefore, immoral or is walking past those children in silence like walking in the footsteps of god/s?
You know, people say that (about it being a lack of education), but it really doesn't make sense if you think about it.
Ignorance is not the same thing as gullibility. And what crucial piece of information were they lacking, anyway? They knew people didn't come back from the dead. They knew virgins didn't give birth. They knew you couldn't turn water into wine, or walk on it. In fact, they specifically regarded the works of God as miracles, and you can't regard something as a miracle unless you first realize that it's outside of the scientific norm. So they understood full well that these things weren't supposed to happen.
Dismissing dozens of generations of human begins as uneducated rubes is too glib an answer. And it happens to be one that lets people today feel smart and savvy, which I suspect is the real reason it's advanced.
Less education in general leads to less critical thought, and people being too eager to just accept what they've been told without bothering to question it.
A thousand years ago the mass of the population was uneducated so it wasn't too difficult to make them believe there's a bearded man in the sky watching their every move to keep them in line. They used to think that the sun revolves around the Earth so it's not so surprising that they believed the bible to be the word of god.
It had a lot of time to become ingrained in our culture and society. Most people are indoctrinated since they are born and they never question it because that's what they teach you... just believe and don't question it. Then they do the same with their children and so on.
That reminds of of a famous quote
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."
Less education in general leads to less critical thought, and people being too eager to just accept what they've been told without bothering to question it.
About things you don't know anything about, perhaps. Not about things everyone knows are impossible. People 2,000 years ago were no less aware of how miraculous these claims were.
About things you don't know anything about, perhaps. Not about things everyone knows are impossible. People 2,000 years ago were no less aware of how miraculous these claims were.
Point I was making is that I think there's a link between education and overall IQ and critical thinking ability.
For example women by average statistics have lower IQs than men, however since women started going to college and being educated, their average IQ has risen significantly from what it was back in the days when they were expected to only be homemakers - it's currently rising at a faster rate than men's are.
I think not enough education leads to a lack of stimulation in the brain.
Though I agree with you - in that I don't picture the 'average' religious person (even 2,000 years ago) as some foaming at the mouth extremist - on the same note though a lot of moral ideas perpetuated by religions seemed to be repeated by the masses, even when they were clearly pretty bad (e.x. the Bible was used in part, to justify slavery back in the pre-emancipation era).
I think that extremists were always the minority - the problem is that people have been too weak to stand up for them, and let them stay in positions of power where they can enforce their will on the masses. I doubt the average Afgani is a die-hard fundamentalist who wants to slay the infidels, but they allowed people like that to get into positions of control over them.
No worries. :)
I think there are some legitimate (but very hard to answer) questions about the long-term effects of a society that abandons religion, since all the attempts to found a Godless state via revolution have ended in mass death.
What about the Crusades, the Inquisition, the current insurgency by ISIS in the Middle East?
And why was 'revolution' such as the French revolution necessary to begin with?
What we don't know is what happens (if anything) when a society is founded on theistic ideals, and then slowly loses those beliefs. Does the moral code stay, unaffected by the removal of its foundation? Or does it slowly degrade and become more susceptible to certain things? We don't know.
What moral code are you referring to? There's not some 'universal theistic moral code', and there have been plenty of barbaric 'morals' promoted by theistic religions.
I think there's a decent argument to be made that something like religion is the only thing strong enough, and motivating enough, to punch through and achieve major social justice upheavals, which is why both the Civil Rights movement and abolition were explicitly and thoroughly religious. It's hard to fight to the death, or in the face of rampant injustice, for the abstract notion of a social contract.
People also used religion to justify slavery to begin with.
You could just replace religion with 'unified belief system' that doesn't require a theistic God, and there'd be little difference in the 'positive benefits' you mention.
What about the Crusades, the Inquisition, the current insurgency by ISIS in the Middle East?
What about them? They pose no issue for what I've said, and their enumeration here is (as it usually is) the argumentative equivalent of a kneejerk atheistic macro that gets Ctrl-V'd every time someone mentions violence.
All societies go wrong, and all ideologies are abused. But religious societies are the only ones that have shown the ability to self-correct over time, which is why they are the ones--with literally zero exceptions--that have produced the liberal Western values we now enjoy. Societies made up of largely religious people have a conscience that can be appealed to. Cultures founded on an explicit rejection of God have never managed this. Pol Pot's Cambodia did not learn from its mistakes and emerge into a tolerant, thriving state. It simply destroyed itself.
What moral code are you referring to? There's not some 'universal theistic moral code', and there have been plenty of barbaric 'morals' promoted by theistic religions.
Read the paragraph again, guy. The "moral code" in question is whatever the moral standard of the society is, even after religion has been abandoned.
I'm getting the distinct impression you fire these responses off without really pausing to make sure you've understood what's being said.
People also used religion to justify slavery to begin with.
People used everything to justify slavery. But it took religion to actually end it.
You could just replace religion with 'unified belief system' that doesn't require a theistic God, and there'd be little difference in the 'positive benefits' you mention.
List one historical example of this happening.
What about them? They pose no issue for what I've said, and their enumeration here is (as it usually is) the argumentative equivalent of a kneejerk atheistic macro that gets Ctrl-V'd every time someone mentions violence.
You're showing a double standard - in the case of dictators like Stalin or Mao you attribute it to atheism - but when religious violence is pointed out you just brush it off as "all societies make mistakes".
All societies go wrong, and all ideologies are abused. But religious societies are the only ones that have shown the ability to self-correct over time, which is why they are the ones--with literally zero exceptions--that have produced the liberal Western values we now enjoy.
But according to a literal interpretation of the Bible, liberal Western values wouldn't be 'religious' at all - they'd be heretical - the type of govt that God established in the Bible was a totalitarian theocracy.
Societies made up of largely religious people have a conscience that can be appealed to. Cultures founded on an explicit rejection of God have never managed this. Pol Pot's Cambodia did not learn from its mistakes and emerge into a tolerate, thriving state. It simply destroyed itself.
That's just an association fallacy - you could replace 'religious people' with 'white people' if you wanted to regarding the abolition of slavery, or liberal Western values, and therefore suggest that being of a 'superior race' is the reason.
Read the paragraph again, guy. The "moral code" in question is whatever the moral standard of the society is, even after religion has been abandoned.
I'm getting the distinct impression you fire these responses off without really pausing to make sure you've understood what's being said.
Why would a Saudi want their 'moral code' to adhere? Abandoning it altogether would be better and would be more 'moral'.
People used everything to justify slavery. But it took religion to actually end it.
That's quite a stretch - there's nothing in the Bible itself that directly condemns slavery, and God himself did not have a problem with people owning slaves.
Just because people said "it's religious" in a day and age where it was socially unaccepted to be anything else, doesn't mean it primarily came from Christianity.
List one historical example of this happening.
The Founders' ideals were based mainly off of the Enlightenment, rather than "religion" - and were definitely unique and not a part of any established religions of the time. They were also primarily diestic rather than theistic.
If your standard simply boils down to "they believed in a God" and it's therefore "religious" - then you could just apply the same to any ideology, regardless of what it is - if you just append "God" to it.
E.X. Stalin's ideology and practice could've been identical to what it was, if he just somehow referenced "God" as motivating it - it would be "religious".
You're showing a double standard - in the case of dictators like Stalin or Mao you attribute it to atheism - but when religious violence is pointed out you just brush it off as "all societies make mistakes".
Stop giving me predictable responses from the Atheistic Playbook for a moment and actually read what I'm saying: I'm talking about the viability of societies that explicitly reject religion. That has literally nothing to do with whether or not you blame religion or atheism for the misdeeds that occur under its name.
But according to a literal interpretation of the Bible, liberal Western values wouldn't be 'religious' at all - they'd be heretical - the type of govt that God established in the Bible was a totalitarian theocracy.
This is positively littered with holes.
First, you don't have to interpret the Bible literally, and most people don't, so "according to a literal interpretation of the Bible" doesn't actually have any argumentative relevance, because I didn't offer anything based on a literal interpretation of the Bible.
Second, this has literally nothing to do with what I just said, which is that only religious societies have produced these values. You obviously can't argue with this, so you've simply changed the subject.
Third, there is absolutely nothing remarkable about the idea that a "government" run by God would and should be dramatically different than a government run by frail, fallible human beings.
That's just an association fallacy - you could replace 'religious people' with 'white people' if you wanted to regarding the abolition of slavery, or liberal Western values, and therefore suggest that being of a 'superior race' is the reason.
It'd be an association fallacy if there was no other evidence, but religion was instrumental in the ideology that destroyed it, and the rejection of religion was a key component in each of the societies that imploded.
Why would a Saudi want their 'moral code' to adhere? Abandoning it altogether would be better and would be more 'moral'.
I have no freakin' clue what you're trying to say here. Seriously, read the quote again.
That's quite a stretch - there's nothing in the Bible itself that directly condemns slavery, and God himself did not have a problem with people owning slaves.
This is literally wrong in a variety of ways, and I've expounded on why earlier in the thread. But that doesn't even matter, because once again you're skipping over the claim you can't argue with to just talk about something else. No sale.
Just because people said "it's religious" in a day and age where it was socially unaccepted to be anything else, doesn't mean it primarily came from Christianity.
Abolitionists largely spoke in explicitly Christian terms, appealing to Christian values. And it worked because religious societies, though still made up of imperfect people, can be appealed to in that way. They have a cultural conscience that makes this kind of reform possible.
The Founders' ideals were based mainly off of the Enlightenment, rather than "religion" - and were definitely unique and not a part of any established religions of the time. They were also primarily diestic rather than theistic.
If your standard simply boils down to "they believed in a God" and it's therefore "religious" - then you could just apply the same to any ideology, regardless of what it is - if you just append "God" to it.
E.X. Stalin's ideology and practice could've been identical to what it was, if he just somehow referenced "God" as motivating it - it would be "religious".
See, this is what I'm talking about: you're basically equivalent to a bot that scans the post for keywords and then spits out some rote response based on what it thinks I must be arguing.
I'm not talking about theocracies, or societies explicitly founded on a religion. I'm talking about societies made up of largely religious people. Seriously, go back and re-read the initial post you replied to.
Stop giving me predictable responses from the Atheistic Playbook for a moment and actually read what I'm saying: I'm talking about the viability societies that explicitly reject religion. That has literally nothing to do with whether or not you blame religion or atheism for the misdeeds that occur under its name.
There's been nothing to suggest that societies 'rejecting religion' relates to their viability, especially since communist countries like North Korea and Soviet Russia are closer to religious nations like Saudi Arabia than they are to Western secular democracies. The main reason these nations collapsed is due to failed economic and social policies anyway - not 'due to rejection of religion'.
This is positively littered with holes.
First, you don't have to interpret the Bible literally, and most people don't, so "according to a literal interpretation of the Bible" doesn't actually have any argumentative relevance, because I didn't offer anything based on a literal interpretation of the Bible.
Second, this has literally nothing to do with what I just said, which is that only religious societies have produced these values. You obviously can't argue with this, so you've simply changed the subject.
And prior to the advent of democracies, only monarchial societies in Europe had produced any lasting values, art, science, etc If you'd been born in the Revolutionary Era you'd probably have been a Tory. :)
Third, there is absolutely nothing remarkable about the idea that a "government" run by God would and should be dramatically different than a government run by frail, fallible human beings.
No, it would either be run 'frail, fallible human beings', or 'frail, fallible human beings' claiming to speak for God.
It'd be an association fallacy if there was no other evidence, but religion was instrumental in the ideology that destroyed it, and the rejection of religion was a key component in each of the societies that imploded.
I'd say a lack of unified values and sense of community is the problem - the idea that it has to be "religious" per se is wrong.
I have no freakin' clue what you're trying to say here. Seriously, read the quote again.
This is literally wrong in a variety of ways, and I've expounded on why earlier in the thread. But that doesn't even matter, because once again you're skipping over the claim you can't argue with to just talk about something else. No sale.
It sounded like you weren't arguing for any specific ideology, just that the ideology be based on "religion" (regardless of what the ideology actually is).
Abolitionists largely spoke in explicitly Christian terms, appealing to Christian values. And it worked because religious societies, though still made up of imperfect people, can be appealed to in that way. They have a cultural conscience that makes this kind of reform possible.
Again, you assert that it's specifically because they're "religious" - I think that it has more to do with having a stronger sense of community rather than "religion" having to be that community.
See, this is what I'm talking about: you're basically equivalent to a bot that scans the post for keywords and then spits out some rote response based on what it thinks I must be arguing.
I'm not talking about theocracies, or societies explicitly founded on a religion. I'm talking about societies made up of largely religious people. Seriously, go back and re-read the initial post you replied to.
You could just as well argue that we've never seen a society based on Enlightenment values like those of the post-American revolutionary West turn into a totalitarian state, but we have seen this occur many times in religious societies.
I wasn't saying that you were arguing for a theocratic government at all.
There's been nothing to suggest that societies 'rejecting religion' relates to their viability
Er, yes there has: the fact that none of them have been viable suggests it.
I assume what you mean to say (I think you overstate things out of pure habit, without even realizing it most of the time) is that this doesn't prove correlation, not that it doesn't even suggest it. Which is technically true, but strains credulity given that rejection of religion has been at the core of all these revolutions. It's ridiculous to pretend this is some incidental detail that may or may not have contributed to their failure.
especially since communist countries like North Korea and Soviet Russia are closer to religious nations like Saudi Arabia than they are to Western secular democracies. Some early 20th century religious fundamentalists even used Maoist propaganda as inspiration for their ministry styles, just for some trivia.
You're still trying to shoehorn this point into some tired old argument about religion and violence/authoritarianism. The argument is not that religious societies cannot devolve into authoritarianism. It's that only religious societies have the capacity to emerge from it. It's a statement about what they can do, not what they can avoid doing.
And prior to the advent of democracies, only monarchial societies in Europe had produced any lasting values, art, science, etc If you'd been born in the Revolutionary Era you'd probably have been a Tory. :)
This is the kind of analogy so obviously inapplicable that you'd never have posted it if you weren't just throwing out kneejerk responses.
In your example democracies hadn't even been tried. In mine the alternative has been tried several times, and failed miserably each time. It would indeed be silly to say "monarchy is great because it's produced all the world's best art!" if there weren't any modern societies that weren't monarchies. But if there were a handful that were, and they were all too busy starving to produce any art, then it wouldn't be quite so silly.
No, it would either be run 'frail, fallible human beings', or 'frail, fallible human beings' claiming to speak for God.
This is vague to the point of meaninglessness. It's not clear if the "government" you're referring to is Eden, some Biblical monarchy, or what.
I'd say a lack of unified values and sense of community is the problem - the idea that it has to be "religious" per se is wrong.
Speculation about counterfactuals is not a fact, or an argument.
Again, you assert that it's specifically because they're "religious" - I think that it has more to do with having a stronger sense of community rather than "religion" having to be that community.
No, they assert that it's specifically because they're religious. You are free to merely guess as to the "real" reason, but no serious person would put your self-serving guess ahead of the explicit testimony of the people themselves as to what their motives were.
You could just as well argue that we've never seen a society based on Enlightenment values like those of the post-American revolutionary West turn into a totalitarian state
Er, you mean other than the very first one?
Do me a favor: before you reply next time, read your response again. See if there are any really obvious problems with the analogies or arguments. If I can think of a glaring flaw in the first five seconds, and you posted it anyway, then it suggests to me that you're basically handing me the First Draft of your thoughts and asking me to intellectually proofread it for you. Which I'm not super interested in doing.
Er, yes there has: the fact that none of them have been viable suggests it.
I assume what you mean to say (I think you overstate things out of pure habit, without even realizing it most of the time) is that this doesn't prove correlation, not that it doesn't even suggest it. Which is technically true, but strains credulity given that rejection of religion has been at the core of all these revolutions. It's ridiculous to pretend this is some incidental detail that may or may not have contributed to their failure
Secular democracies have been viable, despite not being 'religious govts'.
If your argument isn't about the govt itself but rather the religious demographic - well the majority of people in the Soviet union didn't turn into militant atheists the second Lenin took over - religion was just surprised as official policy but still existed culturally.
You're still trying to shoehorn this point into some tired old argument about religion and violence/authoritarianism. The argument is not that religious societies cannot devolve into authoritarianism. It's that only religious societies have the capacity to emerge from it. It's a statement about what they can do, not what they can avoid doing.
That seems like reverse logic to me. A religious person would have much less incentive to emerge from authoritarianism if he blindly accepts it as God's will, and refuses to question his authority.
This is also why Saudis haven't revolted against their rulers - because rebelling against goverment is the same as rebelling against God himself. There's a much stronger correlation between religion and totalitarianism than the other way around.
It was Americans and French who rejected authoritarianism (and religion, at least in the sense that they rejected the popular religious values of the time) by rebelling against their God-appointed monarchs. Europe lived under religious authoritarianism for centuries until the secular Enlightenment inspired them to do otherwise.
It's also nations like North Korea which view their leaders as infallible, while free nations view their leaders as 'frail human beings'.
This is the kind of analogy so obviously inapplicable that you'd never have posted it if you weren't just throwing out the first draft of every response.
In your example democracies hadn't even been tried. In mine the alternative has been tried several times, and failed miserably each time. It would indeed be silly to say "monarchy is great because it's produced all the world's best art!" if there weren't any modern societies that weren't monarchies. But if there were a handful that were, and they were all too busy starving to produce any art, then it wouldn't be quite so silly.
What was tried was communist economic policies - and again these nations are more comparable to Saudi Arabia than they are to Western secular democracy. You attribute 'religion' to something which is much better explained by economic policies.
No, they assert that it's specifically because they're religious.
They're incorrect and don't understand the basic mechanisms of how humans work. It boils down to strong social 'mirroring'.
I suppose if you throw out religion totally, but don't replace it with something then you might leave a void which leads to less unification - but again there's no reason why these values specifically have to be "religious".
You are free to merely guess as to the "real" reason, but no serious person would put your self-serving guess ahead of the explicit testimony of the people themselves as to what their motives were.
I'd trust the opinions of experts far more than I would someone to self-diagnose themselves - experts on body language and human interaction know more about people than most know about themselves, and the concept of social mirroring is the underlying unifying concept, not 'religion' (this exists in other species as well).
This is for example, why militaries, football teams, etc all 'dress the same' (rather than everyone just 'picking out their outfit) - it creates a sense of unity, this is why it works, whether it's "religious or not" doesn't matter.
Do me a favor: before you reply next time, read your response again. See if there are any really obvious problems with the analogies or arguments. If I can think of a glaring flaw in the first five seconds, and you posted it anyway, then it suggests to me that you're basically handing me the First Draft of your thoughts and asking me to intellectually proofread it for you. Which I'm not super interested in doing.
Missed this before I replied.
I don't see any problems with my arguments - other than misinterpretations of what I was saying (ex. you apparently thought I was saying you supported a govt founded on religion, which I was not).
That seems like reverse logic to me. A religious person would have much less incentive to emerge from authoritarianism if he blindly accepts it as God's will, and refuses to question his authority.
This is a reasonable first-blush guess, but the reality shows different. And a little reflection reveals why: because authoritarianism is based on the State being the ultimate authority. But for a religious person, God is the ultimate authority. This is why churches have been places of refuge countless times throughout history. It's why the organization most consistently undermining the GDR was the German clergy.
Any group of people that truly believes "Love God and love your neighbor as yourself" can only be enslaved for so long. Religion can be used to enslave, to be sure, but it is also the ultimate bulwark against that enslavement persisting.
This is also why Saudis haven't revolted against their rulers - because rebelling against goverment is the same as rebelling against God himself. There's a much stronger correlation between religion and totalitarianism than the latter.
No there isn't, because the correlation between atheistic societies and totalitarianism is 100%. That also happens to be the same percentage that describes how many liberal, western societies were formed by and for largely religious people.
It was Americans and French who rejected authoritarianism (and religion, at least in the sense that they rejected the popular religious values of the time) by rebelling against their God-appointed monarchs. Europe lived under religious authoritarian for centuries until the secular Enlightenment inspired them to do otherwise.
Aye, and from the phrase "God-appointed monarchs," they excised the "-appointed monarchs" part. They kept the "God."
Meanwhile, the French had their own revolution based on the same general values, but without the God part, and it was a disaster.
History never gives us perfectly isolated experiments the way the hard sciences do, but that's basically as close as you'll ever get.
What was tried was communist economic policies - and again these nations are more comparable to Saudi Arabia than they are to Western secular democracy. You attribute 'religion' to something which is much better explained by economic policies.
And why have all the anti-religious societies have been Communist ones? Because all societies will worship something. When you rule out God, making the State your new God is the most logical alternative. Secular societies are particularly vulnerable to Statism.
They're incorrect and don't understand the basic mechanisms of how humans work.
And you do, of course! So much so that you have the authority to say that people didn't do things for the reasons they said they did, even as they risked their lives to do them.
I think I'll let that argument just speak for itself.
I'd trust the opinions of experts far more than I would someone to self-diagnose themselves - experts on body language and human interaction know more about people than most know about themselves, and the concept of social mirroring is the underlying unifying concept, not 'religion' (this exists in other species as well).
Right, how could I forget the famous landmark study that analyzed the body language of 19th century abolitionists?
This is a reasonable first-blush guess, but the reality shows different. And a little reflection reveals why: because authoritarianism is based on the State being the ultimate authority. But for a religious person, God is the ultimate authority.
This is why churches have been places of refuge countless times throughout history. It's why t he organization most consistently undermining the GDR was the German clergy.
For a religious person, men claiming to speak for God are their ultimate authority.
This makes churches essentially the 'government' - one form of govt is simply exchanged for another.
Any group of people that truly believes "Love God and love your neighbor as yourself" can only be enslaved for so long.
Romans 13:1 - "Obey the government, for God is the one who put it there. All governments have been placed in power by God."
Religion can be used to enslave, to be sure, but it is also the ultimate bulwark against that enslavement persisting.
It's really not. Unification is the bulwark, religious or not; it allows people to accomplish things in groups that they can't do alone. Resistance to slavery is simply genetic which no one has to be 'taught' - people only accept it if conditioned to out of fear.
Religion if anything just encourages people to submit to it if the enslaver claims, and is blindly accepted to be doing it on behalf of God.
No there isn't, because the correlation between atheistic societies and totalitarianism is 100%.
That also happens to be the same percentage that describes how many liberal, western societies were formed by and for largely religious people.
They were also formed largely for and by white people, while we've yet to see a liberal, westernized society in Africa - therefore whites must be racially superior to blacks. Right? The correlation is just as you described.
Aye, and from the phrase "God-appointed monarchs," they excised the "-appointed monarchs" part. They kept the "God."
Meanwhile, the French had their own revolution based on the same general values, but without the God part, and it was a disaster.
Not because they lacked the "God part", as much as it was a greater reaction to a greater degree of oppression than what the colonists faced.
On the whole it definitely wasn't a disaster, it just could've been better - in the long run it was a huge improvement over what they had before.
History never gives us perfectly isolated experiments the way the hard sciences do, but that's basically as close as you'll ever get.
And why have all the anti-religious societies have been Communist ones? Because all societies will worship something. When you rule out God, making the State your new God is the most logical alternative. Secular societies are particularly vulnerable to Statism.
By the same token, a religious person who believes that God commands him to kill infidels is more likely to resist Western democratic values than a non-religious person. So in that scenario, the religious person is more vulnerable to theocratic statism.
So you're failing to prove anything. You're just suggesting that one form of statism is preferred to another. Decrying authoritarianism and statism on one hand while at the same time claiming that people should blindly accept that a set of values invented by man "comes from God" - without question.
And you do, of course! So much so that you have the authority to say that people didn't do things for the reasons they said they did, even as they risked their lives to do them.
They weren't aware of the underlying reason, everything that people do has a biological route and explanation. The most basic biological reasons are pretty "simple" and "universal".
By your standard then, a drug addict is a "better authority" on what causes drug addiction than a person who's devoted their life to studying drug addiction and working with addicts. Sorry but that's just denialism.
I think I'll let that argument just speak for itself.
Reality speaks for itself. Everything I'm saying is establish scientific fact - you may not 'like it' but that doesn't change it.
The average joe couldn't even define social mirroring, or explain the basic biological functions of human body language - let alone understand how it works on anything but an intuitive level. This is why they falsely believed that 'religion' was the reason - because they were trying to provide an intellectual explanation for something they'd never studied in detail, but rather just learned intuitively.
Right, how could I forget the famous landmark study that analyzed the body language of 19th century abolitionists?
Body language has been found to be pretty much universal in the human species (as it is in other species) - even cultures completely isolated from other civilizations have pretty much identical means of communication.
In your example democracies hadn't even been tried.
Actually democratic forms of govt had arguably been tried in ancient Greece, and arguably "failed" (democratic Athens was conquered by authoritarian Sparta, for example).
The Roman Republic eventually failed and became the Roman Empire (which in turn failed as well, and lead to Europe succumbing to authoritarian monarchies).
I wrote up a longer reply (which I still have, if necessary), but at this point the elephant in the room is the incoherent arguments and non-sequiturs, so I'm going to reply to those first, since I'm pretty sure they render everything else superfluous:
By your standard then, a drug addict is a "better authority" on what causes drug addiction than a person who's devoted their life to studying drug addiction and working with addicts. Sorry but that's just denialism.
Another hole-ridden analogy. First, drug addicts have fundamentally impaired mental processes. Second, literally nothing about being a drug addict gives you insight into the chemical underpinnings of the condition, while on the other hand, people discussing their own motivations are not impaired, and are much better authorities on their own motives. And third, you're not someone who's "devoted their life" to studying abolitionists, so the comparison is wildly inapplicable.
This is what I was talking about when I said you should re-read things before you post them. You routinely toss out comparisons that don't stand up to even the slightest scrutiny. So either you're posting without thinking, or you are thinking and somehow can't see the problems with them. I'm not sure which is worse.
Body language has been found to be pretty much universal in the human species (as it is in other species) - even cultures completely isolated from other civilizations have pretty much identical means of communication.
This is the problem, right here, dude. Please pay close attention:
You said that abolitionists didn't know the real reason they did things, and you made some general reference to the existence of social mirroring and body language. I said I trusted them over you. You said you trusted "the opinions of experts far more than I would someone to self-diagnose themselves." I pointed out (sarcastically) that no experts have done a study of the body language of 19th century abolitionists. So what do you do? You defend the mere existence of social mirroring and body language.
See the problem yet? Nobody disputed the existence of body language. What was disputed was the idea that you had any empirical evidence about these things relating specifically to 19th century abolitionists. Defending the concept in general is neither here nor there.
So there are two possibilities here. Either you realize this response is nonsense and you're hoping I won't notice, in which case you're a dishonest polemicist and nobody should listen to you. OR you don't even realize you're doing this, which means you are fundamentally confused about how science and evidence work and how deductions are formed, in which case people should also not listen to you.
This has been a hallmark throughout pretty much all of your arguments: take some general scientific fact and then pretend you can use it for highly specific judgments or dismissals, like in the example above, or by pretending every pet theory you have about evolution is synonymous with biology. It's just bluster wearing a lab coat.
Actually democratic forms of govt had arguably been tried in ancient Greece, and arguably "failed" (democratic Athens was conquered by authoritarian Sparta, for example).
Yes, but in your example you said "prior to the advent of democracies." Remember that? This is the kind of self-contradicting confusion that takes place when you don't stop to think about what you're saying.
This is really becoming a waste of time. You can't keep the arguments straight, your analogies are fundamentally broken, and you seem to think you can respond to fully-formed contentions by just randomly speculating that "hey, maybe something else was the reason." Get outta' here with that.
Oh, by the way, I happened to see on the Who's Online page that you were reading that post for less than a minute before you started replying.
It really couldn't be more obvious that this arguing is compulsive. It explains everything: the speed, the poorly considered analogies, and the constant confusion. And it's simply inconsiderate. As I said earlier, I'm not going to spend more time thinking about your arguments than you do.
If you want to be taken seriously, start putting more serious thought into what you say. That's not supposed to be pithy or mean, it's genuine advice.
I wrote up a longer reply (which I still have, if necessary), but at this point the elephant in the room is the incoherent arguments and non-sequiturs, so I'm going to reply to those first, since I'm pretty sure they render everything else superfluous:
Another hole-ridden analogy. First, drug addicts have fundamentally impaired mental processes. Second, literally nothing about being a drug addict gives you insight into the chemical underpinnings of the condition, while on the other hand, people discussing their own motivations are not impaired, and are much better authorities on their own motives. And third, you're not someone who's "devoted their life" to studying abolitionists, so the comparison is wildly inapplicable.
This is what I was talking about when I said you should re-read things before you post them. You routinely toss out comparisons that don't stand up to even the slightest scrutiny. So either you're posting without thinking, or you are thinking and somehow can't see the problems with them. I'm not sure which is worse.
Nope, point is the aspects you cite as "religion" being the motivation for abolitionists and the like are not things in nature which are completely exclusive to religion.
So while a religion might be the specific motivator for those people - the facet of 'religion' that's motivating them (ex. the sense of unity and purpose) doesn't only exist within religion, like you seem to think.
This is the problem, right here, dude. Please pay close attention:
You said that abolitionists didn't know the real reason they did things, and you made some general reference to the existence of social mirroring and body language. I said I trusted them over you. You said you trusted "the opinions of experts far more than I would someone to self-diagnose themselves." I pointed out (sarcastically) that no experts have done a study of the body language of 19th century abolitionists. So what do you do? You defend the mere existence of social mirroring and body language.
See the problem yet? Nobody disputed the existence of body language. What was disputed was the idea that you had any empirical evidence about these things relating specifically to 19th century abolitionists. Defending the concept in general is neither here nor there.
Social mirroring and uniformity are widely recognized concepts - I don't have to prove specifically that 'they existed' in the case of abolitionists since they exist as a pretty basic part of human cultures on the whole.
I used militarizes as an analogy, and how soldiers all wearing the same uniform creates a sense of unity which helps motivate them - your fixation on "religion" would be like believe the color of the uniform is the most important thing - when really maybe it's just that they're all wearing the same uniform.
So there are two possibilities here. Either you realize this response is nonsense and you're hoping I won't notice, in which case you're a dishonest polemicist and nobody should listen to you. OR you don't even realize you're doing this, which means you are fundamentally confused about how science and evidence work and how deductions are formed, in which case people should also not listen to you.
This has been a hallmark throughout pretty much all of your arguments: take some general scientific fact and then pretend you can use it for highly specific judgments or dismissals, like in the example above, or by pretending every pet theory you have about evolution is synonymous with biology. It's just bluster wearing a lab coat.
Again you're redirecting the conversation back onto me; you do this a lot. Regardless, I don't have to prove something which is accepted exists in humans as a whole existed in 'this specific scenario'.
It's a fact that concepts such as uniformity and mirroring might exist in religion, but they're not exclusive to it. You also just seem to have an aversion to learning how things work on technical level (probably because it seems cold to you and clashes with a more whimsical fascination with people) - truth is though it's a pretty dumb notion that learning more about something lessens appreciation for it (if that were the case then why learn about 'how movies are made?' Why not just stay ignorant of it and maintain that childlike fascination with the characters on the screen?)
Yes, but in your example you said "prior to the advent of democracies." Remember that? This is the kind of self-contradicting confusion that takes place when you don't stop to think about what you're saying.
Your mentality boils down to much to 'fear of change' and slippery slopes suggesting that secularism is the primary reason for the existence of communist regimes.
This is really becoming a waste of time. You can't keep the arguments straight, your analogies are fundamentally broken, and you seem to think you can respond to fully-formed contentions by just randomly speculating that "hey, maybe something else was the reason." Get outta' here with that.
The burden's on you to prove your assertion - not on others to 'disprove you' - you assert that religion specifically is the reason, I'm just offering plenty of arguments to the contrary.
The burden of proof is a lot higher on someone arguing "for" something than someone arguing against it - that's how it works in criminal courts as well, sorry.
Nope, point is the aspects you cite as "religion" being the motivation for abolitionists and the like are not things in nature which are completely exclusive to religion.
So while a religion might be the specific motivator for those people - the facet of 'religion' that's motivating them (ex. the sense of unity and purpose) doesn't only exist within religion, like you seem to think.
Individual facets can't be parsed out this way--religion is a confluence of principles and motivation that interact with and reinforce one another. It's not a series of independent clauses, it's more like a chemical mixture. So your response is a bit like saying "nitric acid isn't what caused that explosion, because nitric acid can exist in other chemical compositions and not explode." No kidding; the question is what it does in this composition, with hydrogen sulfide.
The very things you dislike about religion are the things that make it capable of good things, as well. It can motivate people to die for a bad cause (terrorism, oppression), but that same property can be used to motivate people to die for a great one (abolition, civil rights).
Which also means that, in order to make this argument (notwithstanding the problems listed herein), you'd also have to dismiss all the claims that religion is a motivator of violence, since all the same "facets" that motivate violence exist outside of religion. Do you?
Social mirroring and uniformity are widely recognized concepts - I don't have to prove specifically that 'they existed' in the case of abolitionists since they exist as a pretty basic part of human cultures on the whole.
Yes, you do, because their general existence is not evidence that they are the primary motivating factor in any one case, any more than the existence of a crime is evidence that a specific person committed it.
You can't use averages and tendencies to judge individuals. Not just because it's wrong and dehumanizing and even a little bigoted (though it's all those things), but because it's factually wrong. You wouldn't do it in statistics.
And let's get into the actual facts of social mirroring, too. Show me an example of the concept that is both a) "widely recognized" (not the same thing as SCIENCE SAYS, by the way) and b) an explanation of life-altering ideological stances, as opposed to minute things like facial cues. Enough skating by on opaque references: start getting specific, and we'll see how well this holds up.
I used militarizes as an analogy, and how soldiers all wearing the same uniform creates a sense of unity which helps motivate them - your fixation on "religion" would be like believe the color of the uniform is the most important thing - when really maybe it's just that they're all wearing the same uniform.
Here's how this analogy should actually look: it's more like I'm saying that the soldiers fought to defend their country (and they all say so, as well), but you think they're doing it just because someone dressed them the same. After all, SCIENCE SAYS that unity motivates people, right? And these people have sartorial unity! So you don't have to prove that it applied in this specific case, right? Same logic, absurd result.
Regardless, I don't have to prove something which is accepted exists in humans as a whole existed in 'this specific scenario'.
Yes, of course you do. You think all you need to do is establish that some kind of principle or tendency exists, and then you can arbitrarily apply it to any specific person, overriding any stated motivations? That's nuts.
It's a known fact that people are stubborn about admitting they're wrong. Ergo, any time you refuse to admit you're wrong, I'll chalk it up to stubbornness. Sound fair? Same logic, absurd result.
It's a fact that concepts such as uniformity and mirroring might exist in religion, but they're not exclusive to it.
And potassium doesn't only exist in bananas, so after you eat a banana, you didn't necessarily get the potassium from it. #SameLogicAbsurdResult
You also just seem to have an aversion to learning how things work on technical level
You realize I'm a programmer, right?
truth is though it's a pretty dumb notion that learning more about something lessens appreciation for it (if that were the case then why learn about 'how movies are made?' Why not just stay ignorant of it and maintain that childlike fascination with the characters on the screen?)
That is indeed a dumb notion! Imagine my relief when I remember I never expressed it.
Your mentality boils down to much to 'fear of change' and slippery slopes suggesting that secularism is the primary reason for the existence of communist regimes.
Well, first off, this is a claim, not a "mentality." And my actual mentality is more in line with this famous quote: "When men stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing. They believe in anything." My mentality is that when you remove the philosophical foundation for human rights, eventually those rights are going to be eroded. And as evidence I present the fact that every time a society has explicitly removed them, they've dramatically violated human rights, and that all the societies that came to recognize modern human rights were highly religious.
Is this proof? No. The topic doesn't lend itself to proof either way. But it's pretty good evidence that holds together logically and philosophically.
Which also means that, in order to make this argument (notwithstanding the problems listed herein), you'd also have to dismiss all the claims that religion is a motivator of violence, since all the same "facets" that motivate violence exist outside of religion. Do you?
I never claimed that violence and dictatorships were exclusive to religion - you claimed that you think religion allows people to resist this better - my claim was that I think the opposite is true, if the ruler is blindly accepted to be 'doing God's work'.
You can't use averages and tendencies to judge individuals. Not just because it's wrong and dehumanizing and even a little bigoted (though it's all those things), but because it's factually wrong. You wouldn't do it in statistics.
But by that standard then, Hitler claimed that Christianity is what inspired him - even though most of Hitler's views were unique to him and not an accepted part of the Christian religion.
So would you take him solely at his word and then declare that "Christianity caused Hitler to exterminate Jews"? Or would you try to read into other motives behind what he did.
Here's how this analogy should actually look: it's more like I'm saying that the soldiers fought to defend their country (and they all say so, as well), but you think they're doing it just because someone dressed them the same. After all, SCIENCE SAYS that unity motivates people, right? And these people have sartorial unity! So you don't have to prove that it applied in this specific case, right? Same logic, absurd result.
Yes, of course you do. You think all you need to do is establish that some kind of principle or tendency exists, and then you can arbitrarily apply it to any specific person, overriding any stated motivations? That's nuts.
Stated motivations can't contradict 'basic human motivations' - that's the point.
A person might say that they eat apples because it makes them healthy, and in their own personal sense that is "true" - but if they claimed that a person "can only eat apples" in order to be healthy that would be false - since the vitamins in apples exist in other fruits and vegetables as well.
It's a known fact that people are stubborn about admitting they're wrong. Ergo, any time you refuse to admit you're wrong, I'll chalk it up to stubbornness. Sound fair? Same logic, absurd result.
And potassium doesn't only exist in bananas, so after you eat a banana, you didn't necessarily get the potassium from it. #SameLogicAbsurdResult
You realize I'm a programmer, right?
That is indeed a dumb notion! Imagine my relief when I remember I never expressed it.
You stated that applying 'general human motives' to individuals is dehumanizing.
"Humanism" is a philosophical concept; the general human motives and motivators are biological concepts - so that's not dehumanizing - it's apples to oranges. If you object to applying universal biological concepts in the human species to individuals because you find that "dehumanizing" that leads me to this conclusion.
Well, first off, this is a claim, not a "mentality." And my actual mentality is more in line with this famous quote: "When men stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing. They believe in anything." My mentality is that when you remove the philosophical foundation for human rights, eventually those rights are going to be eroded. And as evidence I present the fact that every time a society has explicitly removed them, they've dramatically violated human rights, and that all the societies that came to recognize modern human rights were highly religious.
Is this proof? No. The topic doesn't lend itself to proof either way. But it's pretty good evidence that holds together logically and philosophically.
You say that it's 'because they were religious', but since there were no 'non-religious' cultures to compare it to it's not the fairest comparison. That again brings me back to the 'monarchy' argument; you could argue that (prior to modern democratic govts) the reason that countries in Europe made advancements in science, arts, etc is 'because they were monarchies'.
Not to mention using communist regimes as the comparison for 'failed secular states' is a double standard, because those were governments founded specifically on "non-religion" (similar to how the Saudi govt is a govt founded specifically on religion) - they weren't societies made up of "universally non-religious people".
I never claimed that violence and dictatorships were exclusive to religion - you claimed that you think religion allows people to resist this better - my claim was that I think the opposite is true, if the ruler is blindly accepted to be 'doing God's work'.
What's that "if" doing there on the end? You can't just take that part for granted. The whole point is that religious people don't automatically take the word of anyone who claims to be "doing God's work." Why? Because established religions have established precepts and tenets, which means dictators can't so easily bend them to their whims. They can try to do so around the margins, but their ability to do so is limited. Religious people are also historically harder to scare with threats of violence, for obvious reasons.
But by that standard then, Hitler claimed that Christianity is what inspired him - even though most of Hitler's views were unique to him and not an accepted part of the Christian religion.
So would you take him solely at his word and then declare that "Christianity caused Hitler to exterminate Jews"? Or would you try to read into other motives behind what he did.
This would be a fine response to the idea that stated motivation must always (and automatically) be taken at face value, but that's not my position. And even so, in Hitler's case we have his own words in private communications often at odds with his public pronouncements. We don't have anything like that with abolitionists: right or wrong, they obviously and demonstrably believed that it was an expression of their religion to abolish slavery. Contending that they were somehow mistaken about their own motivations is a completely different claim than claiming that someone is actively lying--especially when you have actual evidence to back it up.
Stated motivations can't contradict 'basic human motivations' - that's the point.
I can't imagine what this axiom is based on (I'm guessing nothing), but let's say it's true: what's that got to do with this topic? Nothing about "I oppose slavery because my religion tells me it's wrong" contradicts "basic human motivations."
A person might say that they eat apples because it makes them healthy, and in their own personal sense that is "true" - but if they claimed that a person "can only eat apples" in order to be healthy that would be false - since the vitamins in apples exist in other fruits and vegetables as well.
In order for this analogy to describe the available evidence, you'd have to include the caveat that no person had ever been healthy without eating apples.
You stated that applying 'general human motives' to individuals is dehumanizing.
No, I stated that judging individuals with averages is. And this isn't an accurate description of what you've been doing anyway: you're not "applying general human motives." You're contradicting people's explicit claims with them.
General knowledge is good for general claims, but it doesn't trump individual knowledge. You expressed a sentiment very close to this in another thread (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=1270265#post1270265):
"Generalizations are a problem if applied literally in all situations".
Obviously the word "all" stops this from being an outright contradiction, but you're doing something quite similar here, by treating a generalization as if it were literally true in specific cases.
If you object to applying universal biological concepts in the human species to individuals because you find that "dehumanizing" that leads me to this conclusion.
I don't object to applying universal biological concepts--I object to you pretending that a hazy reference to a barely-related pschologicaly phenomenon is a "universal biological concept." I even asked you to substantiate it, and privately predicted to myself that that question would be one of the ones excluded from your next reply. Lo and behold, that's exactly what happened.
There's a pretty obvious rhetorical trick going on here where you exaggerate the applicability of some shred of scientific evidence (which is already a generous term for psychology, by the way), and when it's questioned you act like science itself is being questioned.
My best guess is that any time I ask you to back up this "SCIENCE SAYS!" stuff we'll find research with non-commital conclusions and dubious applicability that is far more circumspect than you've presented it as.
You say that it's 'because they were religious', but since there were no 'non-religious' cultures to compare it to it's not the fairest comparison.
Non-religious cultures wouldn't be the appropriate comparison: non-religious people would. Even in religious societies there are plenty of atheists, or deists, or just people who don't feel all that strongly about religion. But those weren't the abolitionists. Those weren't the people sticking their necks out. The ones who were were religious, they came to their conclusion from religious precepts, and argued for it specifically from those precepts.
Not to mention using communist regimes as the comparison for 'failed secular states' is a double standard, because those were governments founded specifically on "non-religion" (similar to how the Saudi govt is a govt founded specifically on religion) - they weren't societies made up of "universally non-religious people".
Smooth, slipping "universally" in there even though I said nothing of the sort. Does this kind of stuff work on most people? Is it deliberate, or do you do it unconsciously?
Obviously, there are religious people in all societies, but only societies with a weakened or damaged religious belief are going to be susceptible to an atheistic revolution, for obvious reasons. It's the same with any extremism: it doesn't happen to just anyone. Societies firm in contrary beliefs will repel it. If it finds a foothold it's because the citizenry has drifted that way. It doesn't require a majority, but it requires an underlying sympathy for the cause.
Put another way: revolutions don't usually show up uninvited.
The Sci-Fi Slob
03-17-15, 08:56 AM
But by that standard then, Hitler claimed that Christianity is what inspired him - even though most of Hitler's views were unique to him and not an accepted part of the Christian religion.
So would you take him solely at his word and then declare that "Christianity caused Hitler to exterminate Jews"? Or would you try to read into other motives behind what he did.
Hitlers views were not unique to him, but they were influenced by Christianity. Many of the parts of Mien Kampf in which he describes why he hates the Jews and why Jews don't belong in a Christian German state, he simply stole from the writings of Martin Luther, who himself was not very fond of the Jews.
Hitlers views were not unique to him, but they were influenced by Christianity. Many of the parts of Mien Kampf in which he describes why he hates the Jews and why Jews don't belong in a Christian German state, he simply stole from the writings of Martin Luther, who himself was not very fond of the Jews.
You're right, Christian countries had a history of antisemitism (and HIlter was using the Jews as a scapegoat), but a lot of Hitler's ideas, such as a "master race" weren't widely accepted by Christians.
Perhaps I've been too tactful in answering your question again and again although, as I said before, taken with the position I've repeated ad nauseam regarding holy books I find it odd you've found it unclear.
I don't find that position unclear. I find your subsequent statements inconsistent.
To resolve any misapprehension let me formally state I don't believe what I said, that, while psychologically understandable, any keirkegaardian leap of faith is fanciful, wishful thinking.
Even this I can't parse. Are you saying the "leap of faith" is "psychologically understandable" but also "fanciful, wishful thinking"? Or are you saying you don't believe in anything that follows "I don't believe what I said"? Even now it can be read either way.
matt72582
03-25-15, 12:57 PM
Did anyone see the CNN Special last night, "Atheists: _____ Non-Believers?"
It was pretty good, I just hated the title. Non-believers? It's called Free-thinking, we believe (I'm ignostic, but close enough) in plenty, probably more than Deists...
The problem with 'atheism' or at least the mainstream atheism is that it has way too much of a nihilistic tone. For example I often hear the argument "there can't be a God because there's death and suffering in the world" - even though that's more of an argument against a perfect god than a god period.
I also hear the "life is meaningless" or the "when you die, that's all there is" arguments used even though they aren't substantiated just by 'secularism'. For example even though consciousness as a concept is caused by brain activity, it's not explained why people have "individual consciousness"; e.x. why a person was born in their specific body, as opposed to a neighbors - therefore saying that 'there is nothing after death' is just a faith based belief; the 'life is meaningless' claim also isn't supported by biology, since all species have an intuitive understanding of purpose.
I'm not big on these guys, and think they portray the 'alternative' to religion as negative and cynical.
vBulletin® v3.8.0, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.