What is wrong with being ATHIEST?

Originally posted by Coletti
God no longer speaks directly to men in the way he did to Moses and Abraham. The only direct way that God speaks to us is through his Word. One fundamental tenant of Christianity is the cannon is closed, no more can be added to Scripture. So it is not possible that God will command me to stick a sword through a baby unless he does so through his written revelation - the Bible.

And given that the book is well and truly written, that's another way of saying, no matter what the arguments you present me with, I have already made up my mind.
You guys - atheists, true believers, and interested observers - are talking at cross purposes here.

The atheist point of view is arrived at by considering and discounting supernatural influence over the universe. The christian (and other religious) point of view is not.

What's always struck me about religious belief is its contingency on your parent's beliefs. If you were raised by catholics - chances are, you'll be a catholic. If muslim parents - then you'll likely be muslim. And so on.
Doesn't this strike anyone as having some pretty major implications?
The true believer christians are so adamant about the Truth of their position - and yet, a quirk of birth, and they're not even christians in the first place!

Originally posted by no1marauder
For all you "Divine Command" ethicists please state whether you agree that it is OK to stick a sword in a baby if God tells you so and if the answer is yes, explain how that is ethical. If the answer is no, explain why you can ethically not follow God's commands.

If you can show me in scripture where God commands me to stick a sword in a baby, then I'll say it is ethical for me to do so. But since it does not, in fact God prohibits me from murder, it is not ethical for me to do so. And you will like a broken record point to the Israelites and say God commanded them to do so, and I'll say he didn't command me to do so. And you'll go on about God command some people to do things that are unethical, and I'll say you are wrong because obeying God's command define ethical and you'll go on a tangent about but I don't know what God will command in the future, and I'll say but I do because the cannon is closed and you'll say how do I know and I'll say I know because scripture says so and so on and so on and so on... Look, the fact is I define God's laws as the basis for my ethics, and God's law is written on stone - get it? It is an unchanging standard.

Originally posted by Coletti
If you can show me in scripture where God commands me to stick a sword in a baby, then I'll say it is ethical for me to do so. But since it does not, in fact God prohibits me from murder, it is not ethical for me to do so. And you will like a broken record point to the Israelites and say God commanded them to do so, and I'll say he didn't command me to ...[text shortened]... sis for my ethics, and God's law is written on stone - get it? It is an unchanging standard.

An unchanging standard?
You're talking about an ethical perspective that was written for a society that lived 2000 years ago.
We don't live in that world today.
Ethics must change to suit our changing world.
For example, it's not appropriate that we condone slavery today.

Originally posted by amannion
An unchanging standard?
You're talking about an ethical perspective that was written for a society that lived 2000 years ago.
We don't live in that world today.
Ethics must change to suit our changing world.
For example, it's not appropriate that we condone slavery today.

I believe the ethics of the Bible are true, and as was pointed out by one of the most intelligent non-Christians (bbarr) what is true is true for all time and all people. While societies change, right and wrong do not. If it is wrong to murder then, it is now. If it was wrong to steal then, it is now.

Slavery is an interesting issue. Although the form is different, I think you will find that slavery is still around today. And 2000 years ago, not all slaves were being abused or mistreated or were slaves against their wills. Bond servants were voluntary slaves who made a lifetime commitment to be in service to another person. But an underage prostitute in 2005 has no choice or freedom. The difference between a slave 2000 years ago, and an employee today is not so clear.

Originally posted by Coletti
If you can show me in scripture where God commands me to stick a sword in a baby, then I'll say it is ethical for me to do so. But since it does not, in fact God prohibits me from murder, it is not ethical for me to do so. And you will like a broken record point to the Israelites and say God commanded them to do so, and I'll say he didn't command me to ...[text shortened]... sis for my ethics, and God's law is written on stone - get it? It is an unchanging standard.

In other words, you won't answer the question and have the hubris to assume that you have God all figured out. I guess there will be a seat on God's left hand for St. Coletti since someone with such a perfect knowledge of everything God will do in the future has got to rank in the very highest echelon of the predestined "Elect". And in case you still can't figure it out, a non-theistic ethical theory means having respect for your fellow human beings - something a belief system that regards all people by nature as "vile" wouldn't have the first clue about.

Originally posted by Coletti
I believe the ethics of the Bible are true, and as was pointed out by one of the most intelligent non-Christians (bbarr) what is true is true for all time and all people. While societies change, right and wrong do not. If it is wrong to murder then, it is now. If it was wrong to steal then, it is now.

Slavery is an interesting issue. Although the form ...[text shortened]... reedom. The difference between a slave 2000 years ago, and an employee today is not so clear.

You haven't really addressed my point with slavery. I think you're right about slavery, but my point is that few would accept it as a valid ethiocal standpoint to take today, whereas middle eastern values of 2000 years ago (and more) saw it as a perfectly acceptable process.
My point is not to denigrate either standard - simply to say that we've changed our views.
Ethics must change.

And I have to disagree with your first point.
I'm afraid right and wrong do indeed change from time to time, and place to place. All of our ethical and value systems are entirely based on social understanding and agreement.
We might for example agree that today it is wrong to burn someone at the stake for proposing an atheistic position. In a different setting, a different society, at a different time, we may not find that wrong.

Originally posted by Coletti
If you can show me in scripture where God commands me to stick a sword in a baby, then I'll say it is ethical for me to do so. But since it does not, in fact God prohibits me from murder, it is not ethical for me to do so. And you will like a broken record point to the Israelites and say God commanded them to do so, and I'll say he didn't command me to ...[text shortened]... sis for my ethics, and God's law is written on stone - get it? It is an unchanging standard.

baloney!!!

Originally posted by Coletti
I believe the ethics of the Bible are true, and as was pointed out by one of the most intelligent non-Christians (bbarr) what is true is true for all time and all people. While societies change, right and wrong do not. If it is wrong to murder then, it is now. If it was wrong to steal then, it is now.

Slavery is an interesting issue. Although the form ...[text shortened]... reedom. The difference between a slave 2000 years ago, and an employee today is not so clear.

"The difference between a slave 2000 years ago, and an employee today is not so clear."

Tell that to someone who has just earned enough money to finance a Mercedes lifestyle.

I'm sure some slaves of old did OK, but they had no choice or freedom to choose what they did for a living.

I find this discussion on epistemic justification quite fascinating.

Originally posted by bbarr
There is no necessary connection between having access to reasons and being able to provide these reasons to another. In general, however, being able to access your own reasons for believing something will involve being able to express them (though there are hard cases where your reasons for believing P are that you are currently having an experience as if P. The content of conscious experiences are notoriously difficult to fully express in public languages), and minimally involve being able to deploy those reasons in chains of inference or reasoning.

It seems to me that you are saying that the ability to publicly express one's justification is not necessary for knowledge. However, you're still requiring some form of rational internal justification, correct?

What about those instances where the person has no rational internal justification? E.g. the idiot savant who has a knowledge of certain mathematical principles; or knowledge acquired through intuition? What about the knowledge of a musical prodigy who can identify notes perfectly?

Originally posted by bbarr
Aristotle didn't claim that happiness is the highest good for each person. He claimed that eudaimonia, or living a flourishing human life was the highest good for each person, and that it was constitutive of living a life that was eudaimon for a person to have and excercise certain character traits (e.g., courage, honesty, temperance, etc.) which he called ...[text shortened]... put, the objection to Aristotle you provide above is irrelevant to your previous concern.

The word eudaimon has traditionally been translated as happiness but, as you say, some modern experts it's better represented as living well.

(That probably explains why some aspects of Aristotle's essay on Happiness/Eudaimon didn't make sense at first. Thanks)

As you say, Aristotle's ethical theory passes the test of universality/objectiveness but still leaves virtues that appear to have been (somewhat) arbitrarily chosen and are not self-evident or derived from other self-evident assumptions in his theory.

Which still leaves the question - why should the atheist adopt Aristotle's ethical theory (a question I've mentioned before)? Or, to refer back to my original question (modified for this case) - how would a secular ethical theorist derive [Aristotle's] ethical theory?

Originally posted by no1marauder
As you are allowed to be as snotty towards me as you please, but if I respond in kind my posts get modded, I guess I'll have to ignore your first paragraph.

If you find a TOS violation in my posts, then you are perfectly free to alert them. If you'd kept your posts more civil and less abusive, they wouldn't have been modded. Simple.

It's really not that hard to figure out; an ethical theory based on reason has to be reasoned out by the actors themselves.You give another poor example; a bigot can decide to be as hateful to homosexuals in his own mind is fre to do so; however, he cannot conduct himself towards them in any different manner than he would desire others to conduct themselves towards him. Pretty simple.

The problem with your ethical theory is that reason and empathy are not sufficient basis to build such a theory. So what if the person about to murder a baby can empathise with/ reason about the pain of the baby? Your ethical theory needs the additional prescription (the Prime Directive): Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

But what about the masochist who desires that other people hurt him? Using reason, empathy and the Prime Directive, he would conclude that it is ethical for him to hurt other people.

The question was what would be the basis of an "Atheistic ethical theory"; you posted:

How about fear? Rationalisation? Head in the sand?

Since these are clearly NOT a rational basis for any ethical theory, you were clearly denying the existence of any basis for an "Atheistic ethical theory". You can pretend otherwise now, but your words were pretty clear to any reasonable person.

Oh, but you claimed that Coletti and I were asserting that no ethical theory (basis or no basis) was present. Are you now changing your position?

If you're not, then you're arguing that (according to Coletti and myself) there is no rational basis for an atheist ethical theory; hence there is no basis for an atheist ethical theory; hence there is no atheist ethical theory.

The absurdity of this argument is best demonstrated to you by using "theist" instead of "atheist" in the above paragraph.

That Coletti and I argue that there is no rational basis for an atheist ethical theory does not logically imply that there exists no basis at all for such a theory (an irrational basis - such as the ones we've suggested - could very well exist). Even if no basis existed at all for such a theory, it still does not mean that no such theory exists (e.g. I might theorise that strange creatures with heads of doves, bodies of lions and tails of oxen exist - but offer no basis for such a theory).


You give another poor example: my statement was "No level of empathy would allow one to be killed by another if it could be avoided.". Obviously the baby cannot kill the person in this example, so the killing of the baby would be unjustifiable. If you wish to nitpick (as I'm sure you do) I could have tried to express a perfectly common thought with 100% clarity so that you could not possibly misinterpret it (which you would have anyway). I am comfortable with the laws of self-defense in my country by and large and one is not allowed to kill an innocent to save themselves.

I find it interesting how you keep referring to US laws as part of the basis of your ethical theory (you did this in a thread about same-sex unions, as I remember).

Again, this is perfectly consistent with empathy; one would not want to be killed to save another's life without their consent. So, incorrect, as you knew.

Actually (as I've pointed out above), it is not empathy that prevents the action you're describing, but the Prime Directive. I would be interested to know your response to the question of how the PD applies to masochists.

I also would like you to answer the question if you believe sticking a sword in a baby is ethically OK if God commands it. I assume you won't use Coletti's dodge, but if you do my answer to him applies to you as well.

Why would I want to dodge it? If I was absolutely certain that my God was commanding me to kill a particular baby, I would do it. But, of course, I would need to convinced that the person I am speaking to is, in fact, the God I believe in.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
I find this discussion on epistemic justification quite fascinating.

Originally posted by bbarr
There is no necessary connection between having access to reasons and being able to provide these reasons to another. In gene ...[text shortened]... e knowledge of a musical prodigy who can identify notes perfectly?

Yep, epistemic justification requires access one's reasons, and knowledge requires such justification.

Once again, asking whether in this case or that case a subject has knowledge is pointless unless the case is really spelled out. There are just too many variables. For instance, has the idiot savant worked through these principles, or do they just appear in his mind? Does he deploy these principles in inference, or represent them as principles, or is it just that he can perform calculations wherein the principle is obviously informing his mental computations? Can he reflect on these principles; does he even have the concept of a mathematical principle?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
The word eudaimon has traditionally been translated as happiness but, as you say, some modern experts it's better represented as living well.

(That probably explains why some aspects of Aristotle's essay on Happiness/Eudaimon didn't make sense at first. Thanks)

As you say, Aristotle's ethical theory passes the test of universal ...[text shortened]... fied for this case) - how would a secular ethical theorist derive [Aristotle's] ethical theory?

How are these questions relevant to your original question concerning the universality or subjectivity of secular ethics?

Anyway, whole books are written in defense of Aristotelian virtue theory. A great recent book is by Rosalind Hursthouse, called 'virtue theory'. You should check it out if you are really interested in what virtue theory has going for it.

Ethical theories are not deduced from self-evident premises any more than scientific theories are deduced from self-evident premises. I would absolutely love to see a theist attempt to deduce their ethical theory from self-evident premises.

Originally posted by bbarr
Yep, epistemic justification requires access one's reasons, and knowledge requires such justification.

Once again, asking whether in this case or that case a subject has knowledge is pointless unless the case is really spelled out. There are just too many variables. For instance, has the idiot savant worked through these principles, or do they just app ...[text shortened]... Can he reflect on these principles; does he even have the concept of a mathematical principle?

Let's assume the principles we're talking about refer to theorems in Euclidean geometry (say, about the congruency or similarity of polygons). Say the idiot savant is able to solve complex problems of geometry by using these principles, but he can provide no rational internal justification as to why he believes in these principles - just that they're "right". Would his knowledge (in the common sense) of these principles be knowledge in the epistemic sense?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Let's assume the principles we're talking about refer to theorems in Euclidean geometry (say, about the congruency or similarity of polygons). Say the idiot savant is able to solve complex problems of geometry by using these principles, but he can provide no rational internal justification as to why he believes in these principles - just that they' ...[text shortened]... uld his knowledge (in the common sense) of these principles be knowledge in the epistemic sense?

The savant may have a form of performative knowledge ("knowledge how"😉 akin to knowing how to ride a bike or throw a strike, but he certainly does not have propositional knowledge ("knowledge that"😉 because, ex hypothesi, he can provide no reason for thinking that the principles under consideration are true. From an epistemic standpoint, nothing distinquishes the savant's true beliefs from mere lucky guesses. Without reasons for a belief, that belief cannot be an instance of propositional knowledge.