This is how I size up Freaky's argument:
He posits that there exists an Objective Morality, though he, like most theists, will (or at least should) admit that this is taken on faith. Faith in the Bible as dictated by God's mortal secretaries. Freaky has not proven, nor can he find proof, that morals are not a function of culture, environment and other sociological factors, and therefore fluid in both time and space. Nevertheless he charges that this Objective Morality presents a crisis for atheists, thereby introducing one aspect of the double standard I was on a tear about earlier in this thread.
He then challenges atheists to explain how a material universe came to produce the Objective Morality he has invested his faith in but atheists have not. So in effect atheists must take responsibility to explain, not their cosmology, but actually his cosmology. That is, atheists are assigned the impossible task of explaining how their godless universe could produce his divine universe.
Hearing no satisfactory answer to his challenge, he then concludes that atheism is "rotten to the core" and believes he has made his argument for a God. Of course, therein dangles the other aspect of the double standard: that God is not subject to a causal chain and therefore need not have his origins elucidated.
Originally posted by epiphinehasSince God is an invention of the mind of man, man is free to assign to God any attributes he likes; that is, God can be defined to have whatever properties that will sell the idea to the public at large and make for elegant-sounding "theories" about the nature of God.
I agree and I've said as much. God is the ultimate Good. His commands, therefore, aren't arbitrary, since they proceed from His nature. Neither is God bound by His commands since there is no metaphysical possibility of God ever contradicting them.
It all seems to me to be rather dull wordsmithing.
Originally posted by SoothfastMore like monkeys hooting in the tree branches, who can hoot the loudest gets the votes.
Since God is an invention of the mind of man, man is free to assign to God any attributes he likes; that is, God can be defined to have whatever properties that will sell the idea to the public at large and make for elegant-sounding "theories" about the nature of God.
It all seems to me to be rather dull wordsmithing.
3 edits
Originally posted by SoothfastHow God's attributes are arrived at, whether they are an invention of the mind or not, says nothing about whether that God exists or not. To claim otherwise is to commit the genetic fallacy.
Since God is an invention of the mind of man, man is free to assign to God any attributes he likes; that is, God can be defined to have whatever properties that will sell the idea to the public at large and make for elegant-sounding "theories" about the nature of God.
It all seems to me to be rather dull wordsmithing.
Further, it is not a foregone conclusion that God doesn't exist, so claiming that God is "an invention of the mind of man" merely begs the question.
Originally posted by epiphinehasIf there is a god, he/she/it likely bears no resemblance to any description of "god" that has been concocted by the theologians. After all, there is no empirical evidence of a god of any kind, and so the descriptions of God found in holy books and religious tracts can only be just that: unfounded descriptions, contrived by self-interested or delusional men over the centuries to serve contemporary political power structures. But I digress...
How God's attributes are arrived at, whether they are an invention of the mind or not, says nothing about whether that God exists or not. To claim otherwise is to commit the genetic fallacy.
Further, it is not a foregone conclusion that God doesn't exist, so claiming that God is "an invention of the mind of man" merely begs the question.
The point is, square parsecs of ink have been wasted writing about a chimera which has never seen fit to grant an interview for the benefit of the billions of folks on Earth who might find it interesting. I understand it's all a "faith-based" thing, but I personally find it impossible to suspend disbelief for a lifetime on matters like this.
2 edits
Originally posted by SoothfastAfter all, there is no empirical evidence of a god of any kind...
If there is a god, he/she/it likely bears no resemblance to any description of "god" that has been concocted by the theologians. After all, there is no empirical evidence of a god of any kind, and so the descriptions of God found in holy books and religious tracts can only be just that: unfounded descriptions, contrived by self-interested or delusional me t I personally find it impossible to suspend disbelief for a lifetime on matters like this.
Of course, that depends on how you interpret the evidence. For instance, the fact that our universe had a beginning, is finely-tuned, etc., many believe suggests the existence of God.
The point is, square parsecs of ink have been wasted writing about a chimera which has never seen fit to grant an interview for the benefit of the billions of folks on Earth who might find it interesting.
This is your criteria for establishing God's existence? That he hasn't given an interview? 🙂
I understand it's all a "faith-based" thing, but I personally find it impossible to suspend disbelief for a lifetime on matters like this.
That you conceive of theistic faith as a mere suspension of disbelief belies a lack of understanding. Most theists find their faith in God through rational consideration of the evidence. And Biblical faith is imparted through the internal instigation of the Holy Spirit and so based on revealed knowledge. In no way is faith a willful suspension of disbelief, as if faith should or could go against everything one believes about the world—as if one believes despite the deliverances of one's perception and/or rationality.
1 edit
Originally posted by epiphinehas
After all, there is no empirical evidence of a god of any kind...
Of course, that depends on how you interpret the evidence. For instance, the fact that our universe had a beginning, is finely-tuned, etc., many believe suggests the existence of God.
The point is, square parsecs of ink have been wasted writing about a chimera which has ne world—as if one believes despite the deliverances of one's perception and/or rationality.
Of course, that depends on how you interpret the evidence. For instance, the fact that our universe had a beginning, is finely-tuned, etc., many believe suggests the existence of God.
Wishful thinking.
The point is, square parsecs of ink have been wasted writing about a chimera which has never seen fit to grant an interview for the benefit of the billions of folks on Earth who might find it interesting.
I was being somewhat facetious, but yeah it would be nice.
That you conceive of theistic faith as a mere suspension of disbelief belies a lack of understanding. Most theists find their faith in God through rational consideration of the evidence. And Biblical faith is imparted through the internal instigation of the Holy Spirit and so based on revealed knowledge. In no way is faith a willful suspension of disbelief, as if faith should or could go against everything one believes about the world—as if one believes despite the deliverances of one's perception and/or rationality.
For me personally it would take a masterful act of suspended disbelief, and I suspect a lot of people (not all) who profess to believe in a god are just getting by on suspension of disbelief. But that's another issue.
Originally posted by epiphinehasThere is empiricle evidence of God.
[b]After all, there is no empirical evidence of a god of any kind...
Of course, that depends on how you interpret the evidence. For instance, the fact that our universe had a beginning, is finely-tuned, etc., many believe suggests the existence of God.
The point is, square parsecs of ink have been wasted writing about a chimera which has ne ...[text shortened]... world—as if one believes despite the deliverances of one's perception and/or rationality.
The subject is your own consciousness.
The experiment is the living the true spiritual life.
And the observable evidence is the raising of that consciousness and God is realized in purified mind and heart.
This is mostly subjective but your life changes are witnessed by others , never the less the evidence is undeniable to the person who becomes the subject.
You cannot fudge the results because a person can only raise their consciousness to realize God if they sincerely live the spiritual life.............and then the evidence will become clear to them but rightly not by others.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI'm not sure with what, precisely, you're agreeing. Different theists, just like different atheists, have different accounts of the content and justification of morality. These accounts still need to argued for, and simply tokening God doesn't suffice as an argument for why morality makes sense. Further, no serious ethicist I've read conceives of morality as an accouterment. Aristotle, Kant, Hume, Mill, etc. all consider it of fundamental importance, though for very different reasons. There may be some atheists out there that think of morality as simply an evolutionary byproduct, to be explained away by scientific progress in psychology or sociology, but I see no reason to take these accounts seriously, and I have been singularly unimpressed with the results on this front so far. I guess I need more by way of argument for the conclusion that morality loses its importance in the absence of a commitment to theism. Similarly for the claim that in the absence of God, existence is meaningless. Similarly for the claim that if existence is meaningless, then morality is unimportant. I just don't see how any of that follows.
I agree: the theist has an all-encompassing explanation for why morality makes sense, given the perspective of the built-in nature of moral man. The atheist, however, appears to assign morals as accouterments--- something value-added, for lack of a better way of saying it.
Take God (the Creator) out of the equation and the theist says the whole thing i ...[text shortened]... ation of chemistry/physics in the OP. Naturally-speaking, how is a moral to be categorized?
Originally posted by epiphinehasHow, exactly, does this avoid the Euthyphro dilemma? Is God perfectly good because he perfectly adheres to independent standards of goodness, or is he perfectly good because he is definitive of standards of goodness? If the first, then goodness is not dependent on God. If the second, then goodness is essentially an arbitrary affair. It's the same problem.
[b]Now, if you think that the theist's strategy here is on better footing, because grounded in a conception of God, then I guess I'd like to know why.
(I'll throw my two cents in here, if Freaky doesn't mind.)
I would proffer William Alston's reformulated divine command theory, in order to avoid the Euthyphro dilemma:
God is not bound by his ...[text shortened]... t seems to me, by contrast, is stuck with grounding moral obligation in social convention.[/b]
It's fine, I guess, for you to claim that atheists are stuck grounding morality in convention, but I see no reason to take that seriously in the absence of an argument. Aristotle doesn't do this, nor Kant, nor Hume, nor Mill. Neo-Hobbesian social contract theorists (like Gauthier) do, but neo-Kantian social contract theorists (like Rawls) do not. Normative cultural relativists do, but ethicists don't take this position seriously. I mean, have you read any serious moral philosophy, or do you just throw out these allegations willy-nilly?
1 edit
Originally posted by SoothfastFor me personally it would take a masterful act of suspended disbelief...Of course, that depends on how you interpret the evidence. For instance, the fact that our universe had a beginning, is finely-tuned, etc., many believe suggests the existence of God.
Wishful thinking.
[quote]The point is, square parsecs of ink have been wasted writing about a chimera which has never seen fit to grant an interview for to believe in a god are just getting by on suspension of disbelief. But that's another issue.
And so you conclude that anyone who claims to have faith must simply be choosing to suspend disbelief. That's awfully presumptuous, don't you think?
Originally posted by epiphinehasDidn't I say "a lot of people (not all)"...?
And so you conclude that anyone who claims to have faith must simply be choosing to suspend disbelief. That's awfully presumptuous, don't you think?
See there: not all, in parentheses. Plain as day. But I can speak for myself, which is what I did in that post.
Originally posted by epiphinehasNo problem. And for what it's worth, I don't think you're one of those people who are on autopilot with regards to your beliefs. Clearly you've invested a lot of thinking on the matter, have a trained intellect, and know of what you speak. I find your arguments intriguing, even though I dispute your basic postulates.
You're right. My mistake.