23 Feb 11
1 edit
Among the sciences, however, there is, over and against Biblical theology, a philosophical theology, which is an estate entrusted to another faculty. So long as this philosophical theology remains within the limits of reason alone, and for the confirmation and exposition of its propositions makes use of history, sayings, books of all peoples, even the Bible, but only for itself, without wishing to carry these propositions into Biblical theology or to change the latter’s public doctrines – a privilege of divines – it must have complete freedom to expand as far as its science reaches. And although the right of censorship of the theologian (regarded merely as a divine) cannot be impugned when it has been shown that the philosopher has really overstepped his limits and committed trespass upon theology, yet, the instant this is in doubt and a question arises whether, in writing or in some other public utterance of the philosopher, this trespass has indeed occurred, the superior censorship can belong only to the Biblical theologian, and to him as a member of his faculty; for he has been assigned to care for the second interest of the commonwealth, namely, the prosperity of the sciences, and has been appointed just as legally as has the other [the theologian regarded as a divine]. ----Kant
24 Feb 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadNow turn the question around and explain how you as a theist might explain to an atheist such as I, that burning the cat is wrong.
Now turn the question around and explain how you as a theist might explain to an atheist such as I, that burning the cat is wrong.
From my perspective it sounds even more embarrassing for you to say "God told me it was wrong", than my own explanation.
What is even more embarrassing is the fact that God probably has not told you it is wrong - if pressed ...[text shortened]... yourself. Whether or not some universal God created meaning exists will not change that fact.
First, when my neighbor states that in reality there is no right or wrong, I can disagree. Second, my disagreement will be based on an absolute moral truth: that cruelty is always and everywhere wrong.
From my perspective it sounds even more embarrassing for you to say "God told me it was wrong", than my own explanation.
What we'd probably share is the immediate perception that burning a cat alive is wrong. As an atheist, however, you'd have to conclude that your perception of the wrongness of such an act is nothing more than a social construct or an evolutionary adaptation, or a little of both, without objective basis. While I, a non-atheist, will take it as a matter of fact that what I perceive is an absolute moral truth, no less real than the physical world perceived with the senses.
It is as much a mistake for an atheist to assume that theists do right only because they're following orders as it is for a theist to assume that atheists aren't or cannot be moral people.
What is even more embarrassing is the fact that God probably has not told you it is wrong - if pressed you would probably admit that your explanation would be no different from mine.
If pressed, I would posit a maximally excellent God as ultimate moral standard, whose commands are binding for all, as they are expressions of the greatest possible good. If my cat-burning neighbor would like to hash it out after that, I would definitely oblige him (or her).
24 Feb 11
Originally posted by epiphinehasYou have merely stated that it is wrong. Not explained why. So far you are no different from the Atheist who made the exact same claim. Your complaint against the atheist was you felt he would struggle to explain why.
First, when my neighbor states that in reality there is no right or wrong, I can disagree. Second, my disagreement will be based on an absolute moral truth: that cruelty is always and everywhere wrong.
What we'd probably share is the immediate perception that burning a cat alive is wrong. As an atheist, however, you'd have to conclude that your perception of the wrongness of such an act is nothing more than a social construct or an evolutionary adaptation, or a little of both, without objective basis. While I, a non-atheist, will take it as a matter of fact that what I perceive is an absolute moral truth, no less real than the physical world perceived with the senses.
Actually I find social constructs and evolutionary adaptation to be more objective than your essentially arbitrary claim that morality is a brute fact.
It is as much a mistake for an atheist to assume that theists do right only because they're following orders as it is for a theist to assume that atheists aren't or cannot be moral people.
Actually my observation is that some theists tend to find the 'following orders' idea to be a convenient excuse. ie they do not feel personally obliged to do right. Of course this is far from universal and atheists come up with their own set of justifications.
If pressed, I would posit a maximally excellent God as ultimate moral standard, whose commands are binding for all, as they are expressions of the greatest possible good. If my cat-burning neighbor would like to hash it out after that, I would definitely oblige him (or her).
Huh? I thought moral standards were brute facts. So God here seems to be merely an enforcer. So theism really has nothing to do with it. So why cannot I as an atheist also posit that morality is a brute fact? And how would I or you know whether or not cat-burning is good or bad under brute fact morality?
I must add that brute fact morality doesn't make much sense. Its almost as if the universe cares about human lives. Does your brute fact morality have anything to say about plants, or does it only apply to conscious beings with central nervous systems? Oddly specific.
And why should I 'follow' this brute fact morality? What reason would I have to do 'good' rather than 'bad'? For the love of the universe perhaps? Fear of the enforcer?
The more I think about it, the less sense it makes.
24 Feb 11
Originally posted by souvereinTo answer your question, no, agreeing means we all submit to a set of rules/laws,
[b]The higher standard isn't a 'set' set of rules, if it were the 10 Commandments and the law
would have been enough for us. In addition, if all you want and are striving for is
a good afterlife you are again missing out on God now, the Kingdom of God is not
for just the here after though it will be there, but it is here and now.
If I understand yo ...[text shortened]... he 10 Commandments. Don't you think we can agree on most of them without (a believe in) God?[/b]
and that does not have to be done even if we do all agree that it would be the right
thing to do. My point was not to pick a set of rules in my last post, but point out
that right and wrong is really only found by following God, not a set of rules that
were carved in stone, or written by a few of us handed down to the rest of us.
Kelly
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
24 Feb 11
Originally posted by KellyJayThere is an interpretation that makes sense to me and explains the apparent contradictions between different groups' understanding of the rules/laws. It is that the rules a society finds to work for it, are at any given time, enshrined by that society in its religion. Then they "follow God" by adherence to these rules. It helps the society preserve and transmit these rules, to confer upon them the blessing of a divine source.
To answer your question, no, agreeing means we all submit to a set of rules/laws,
and that does not have to be done even if we do [b]all agree that it would be the right
thing to do. My point was not to pick a set of rules in my last post, but point out
that right and wrong is really only found by following God, not a set of rules that
were carved in stone, or written by a few of us handed down to the rest of us.
Kelly[/b]
This does not negate the possibility of God being the source. From a religious perspective (which I can appreciate without having) it does place the burden on us to recognize that we can never be self-satisfied that we have found the rules that a truly good God would establish. God would not unequivocally reveal His rules to one group and fail to reveal them with equal clarity to all groups. Instead, each group has the opportunity to come across the clues concerning how to get along, as it evolves. In that sense, we can say we are following God's trail of clues.
26 Feb 11
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadI thought moral standards were brute facts. So God here seems to be merely an enforcer.
You have merely stated that it is wrong. Not explained why. So far you are no different from the Atheist who made the exact same claim. Your complaint against the atheist was you felt he would struggle to explain why.
What we'd probably share is the immediate perception that burning a cat alive is wrong. As an atheist, however, you'd have to conclu rhaps? Fear of the enforcer?
The more I think about it, the less sense it makes.
If God is merely an enforcer, moral absolutes would have an existence separate from him, which isn't the case. God's character ultimately determines what is right and wrong. God embodies, to a maximally excellent degree, compassion, fairness, kindness, impartiality, justice, love, etc., and his commands are necessary expressions of his character. As such, neither are God's commands arbitrary.
So theism really has nothing to do with it. So why cannot I as an atheist also posit that morality is a brute fact?
Because your atheism precludes you from doing so; atheistic morality must be a social construct and/or evolutionary adaptation.
And how would I or you know whether or not cat-burning is good or bad under brute fact morality?
Conscience; moral perception.
And why should I 'follow' this brute fact morality? What reason would I have to do 'good' rather than 'bad'? For the love of the universe perhaps? Fear of the enforcer?
If your neighbor is burning a cat alive, something you know is wrong, are you really going to question whether or not you ought to obey your conscience?
26 Feb 11
Originally posted by JS357Romans 2:14 (New International Version, ©2010)
There is an interpretation that makes sense to me and explains the apparent contradictions between different groups' understanding of the rules/laws. It is that the rules a society finds to work for it, are at any given time, enshrined by that society in its religion. Then they "follow God" by adherence to these rules. It helps the society preserve and transmi ...[text shortened]... o get along, as it evolves. In that sense, we can say we are following God's trail of clues.
14 Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law.
I think your right and I think this scripture holds to the same truth if I understood
you correctly. I think God gives us a "nature" of it and we run through life both
patting ourselves on our back for good things we do, and excusing the bad things
we do because we know better. We may not all agree on the finer points, but we
know there are points to be made and argue them with each other trying to get the
other so see or acknowledge the "right" as we see it.
Kelly
26 Feb 11
Originally posted by epiphinehasThey are arbitrary insofar as they are based on an arbitrary brute fact morality.
As such, neither are God's commands arbitrary.
Because your atheism precludes you from doing so; atheistic morality must be a social construct and/or evolutionary adaptation.
My atheism does no such thing. Evolutionary adaptation, or a side effect of consciousness seem to be the best explanations, but they are in no way required by atheism.
Conscience; moral perception.
But I thought we were already in agreement that that was unreliable. After all your neighbor seems to have a difference conscience and moral perception. So you still need to find a way to explain to him why your perception is better than his.
If your neighbor is burning a cat alive, something you know is wrong, are you really going to question whether or not you ought to obey your conscience?
Yes. Do you always obey your conscience? Most people I know do not. I know I occasionally go against it.
So I'll ask again, why follow your conscience?
04 Mar 11
3 edits
Originally posted by epiphinehasMy basic contention is that the atheist world-view is at bottom nihilistic, precisely because it lacks a maximally excellent God as the ultimate standard of value.
[b]If I'm correct however, that your arguments for the OP claim: "consistent atheism is not possible" hinge upon a god with maximal attributes;...
For the sake of convenience, let me reiterate my basic argument as it has been fleshed out in this thread so far.
My basic contention is that the atheist world-view is at bottom nihilistic, precisely ...[text shortened]... (and therefore not ultimately futile), that God is the source of moral absolutes, and so on).[/b]
Then your basic contention makes no sense. Nihilism to first order translates to no moral facts (or no moral properties or values or knowledge or some such). How could anything be at bottom nihilistic precisely because of a commitment to P, where P in no way entails no moral facts? That some system lacks "a maximally excellent God as the ultimate standard of value" in no way entails that the system cannot entertain moral facts. This point seems really obvious to me: just because an atheist does not think some magical graybeard in the sky undergirds or otherwise defines through fiat (somehow, in some mysterious way) morality does not mean she is committed to there being no moral facts.
Indeed, the atheist is capable of creating meaning for herself, but the meaning she creates is at best a fabrication and has no objective basis.
I'm still struggling to understand why the atheist should worry if her meaning in life has no "objective basis". Meaning is surely inherently subjective on at least some level. Let's look at your so-called "objective" basis for meaning. As I have asked you before, what precisely should count as 'objective' about it? Well...nothing as far as I can tell so far: that you inextricably link meaning with one particular mind is, if anything, subjectivist; the fact that you think this meaning depends constitutively on the existence of some particular mind is -- I think by definition -- subjectivist. If under any way we slice it meaning is tied at bottom to mind(s), I would rather my life's meaning be dependent on my own mind and not on some graybeard in the sky. So, again, I'm failing to understand why the atheist should care that her meaning in life fails to be 'objective' in the way you intend the term.
Therefore, an atheist can live happily, but not consistently. That is, since it is not possible to live a meaningless existence, she must create meaning, even if it contradicts what she believes is true about the world
How would one's meaning creation contradict what she believes is true about the world? I thought meaning grows basically endogenously in the soils of what one thinks and understands and interprets and knows and evaluates, etc, about the world.
At any rate, your argument seems to make less and less sense as you go. Let's make this simple. If, as you claim, an atheist can live happily but not happily and consistently; then it should follow that any happy atheist is committed to at least one contradiction of the form (P & not-P). So, what would you have us believe is such a P here? And please be specific.