A problem with some religous views Part 2.
 

In this post I am going to assume the argument in A problem with some religous views is correct. I'd appreciate it if, for the purposes of trying to keep the thread coherent, that if you disagree with this argument then you respond to the original post.

Original claim
'consider the statement: "we are all guilty of sins, those who believe can get redemption and those who don't believe have no chance of redemption and will be punished"

If my moral sense tells me that a god who enforces this view is morally repugnant then at least one of the following is true:

I am being deceived by my moral feelings
god isn't good
that religous view is mistaken'



I'm now going to make two small steps. I had planned to just claim these were obvious but after being put through the wringer in the previous thread I shall make no such assumption.

Firstly:

The truth of the argument is independent of the statement. By that I mean any statement that caused me the moral repugnation would have done. So I can generalise the claim to.

Claim 1
'If my moral sense tells me that god as described by some religon is morally repugnant then at least one of the following is true:

I am being deceived by my moral feelings
god isn't good
that religous view is mistaken'


Secondly:

Any rational person, who considers the matter must believe logically sound arguments. so

claim 2
'Any rational person whose moral sense tells them that god as described by some religon is morally repugnant must believe that at least one of the following is true:

they are being deceived by their moral feelings
god isn't good
that religous view is mistaken

although they may not know which of the three to believe'


Do you all agree with claims 1. and 2. (some hope [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img])

If not why not?


chez

Re: A problem with some religous views Part 2.
 

Yes you are correct. Lets say becuase I know of you, and you are human, and humans can make mistakes. That your are in error.

Re: A problem with some religous views Part 2.
 

[ QUOTE ]
although they may not know which ones to believe'

[/ QUOTE ]

I would change the words “which ones” to “which of the 3” it is a bit less confusing. At first I thought you might have meant which other religion to believe - but that was my error on first read.

But, so far I don’t see any flaw - other than the verbage itself (could be worded better, not saying I could, but when you are done, I’ll help out if needed) but not your question.

I’ll be interested to see if I missed any flaws so far.

Re: A problem with some religous views Part 2.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
although they may not know which ones to believe'

[/ QUOTE ]

I would change the words “which ones” to “which of the 3” it is a bit less confusing. At first I thought you might have meant which other religion to believe - but that was my error on first read.

But, so far I don’t see any flaw - other than the verbage itself (could be worded better, not saying I could, but when you are done, I’ll help out if needed) but not your question.

I’ll be interested to see if I missed any flaws so far.

[/ QUOTE ]

but that's what is says [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

All help with clarity is greatly appreciated.

chez

Re: A problem with some religous views Part 2.
 

You had me going there - I thought it might have been a miracle -lol -quick editing.

I will help, have a few things to get done first.

Re: A problem with some religous views Part 2.
 

Quick question - you are using the words “moral sense” and moral feelings” synonymously correct?

I am trying to edit for you and want to use the same words throughout - makes it simpler.

Or is that your point - that your feelings are getting in the way for your sense?

Re: A problem with some religous views Part 2.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Quick question - you are using the words “moral sense” and moral feelings” synonymously correct?

[/ QUOTE ]

You're correct, no clever distinction just inconsistent.


chez

Re: A problem with some religous views Part 2.
 

It is possible that something regarding the moral correctness of the religous view is hidden. Where if you knew what God knows you would no longer feel repugnant. This alows for your moral sense to be intact, god to be good, and the religous view to be correct.

Re: A problem with some religous views Part 2.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Yes you are correct. Lets say becuase I know of you, and you are human, and humans can make mistakes. That your are in error.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for your opinion that the claims are correct. As for the rest, I'm not quite sure what you're point is although I agree that I make errors - that's one of the reasons I find these discussions useful.

chez

Re: A problem with some religous views Part 2.
 

[ QUOTE ]
It is possible that something regarding the moral correctness of the religous view is hidden. Where if you knew what God knows you would no longer feel repugnant. This alows for your moral sense to be intact, god to be good, and the religous view to be correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

I concur. And given that you are not being deceived by your feelings, but instead you are correctly reacting to your feelings which just happen to be based on incomplete information, then any conclusion based on your premise is going to be shaky.

Re: A problem with some religous views Part 2.
 

Thanks for your opinion that the claims are correct. As for the rest, I'm not quite sure what you're point is although I agree that I make errors - that's one of the reasons I find these discussions useful.

I just wanted to see where you went to next. So I randomly choose an option to see where you were going with this. However, i did run across a 4th option, that could be added.

Re: A problem with some religous views Part 2.
 

I think this is clearer without changing your point. Do you agree? Mostly puncuation and grammar changes. Please feel free to change back what you want.

************************************************** *************


Original claim

Consider this statement: "We are all guilty of sins. Those who believe can get redemption; those who don't believe have no chance of redemption and will be punished."

If my moral sense tells me that a god who enforces this view is morally repugnant, then at least one of the following is true:

I am being deceived by my moral feelings.
God isn't good.
That particular religious view is mistaken.


Claim 1

If my moral sense tells me that god as described by a particular religion is morally repugnant, then at least one of the following is true:

I am being deceived by my moral sense.
God isn't good.
That particular religious view is mistaken.


Claim 2

Any rational person whose moral sense tells them that god as described by a particular religion is morally repugnant must believe that at least one of the following is true:

They are being deceived by their moral sense.
God isn't good.
That religious view is mistaken.

Although, they may not know which of the three to believe is true.

************************************************** ********

The only other edit I can think of is to take out the words “at least” the 3 times that you say it. . Doesn’t it have to be any of the 3 but only 1 of the 3. Unless you are saying the reason can be , for example: both because god isn’t good and also because the religious view is mistaken.

If only 1 can be true then say it this way:
“ …then one of the following is true.” instead of the way you say it "...at least one of the following is true."

Re: A problem with some religous views Part 2.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It is possible that something regarding the moral correctness of the religous view is hidden. Where if you knew what God knows you would no longer feel repugnant. This alows for your moral sense to be intact, god to be good, and the religous view to be correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

I concur. And given that you are not being deceived by your feelings, but instead you are correctly reacting to your feelings which just happen to be based on incomplete information, then any conclusion based on your premise is going to be shaky.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you want to go down this path then stick it into the other thread please. However if my moral sense is leading me to believe something that is untrue then it misleads me.

Doesn't matter is some other knowledge could change that.

If I had that knowledge then the moral repugnance would disappear and the premise would no longer be true. The claim still remains valid.

Anyway, please stick it in the other thread if you want to continue.

chez

Re: A problem with some religous views Part 2.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It is possible that something regarding the moral correctness of the religous view is hidden. Where if you knew what God knows you would no longer feel repugnant. This alows for your moral sense to be intact, god to be good, and the religous view to be correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

I concur. And given that you are not being deceived by your feelings, but instead you are correctly reacting to your feelings which just happen to be based on incomplete information, then any conclusion based on your premise is going to be shaky.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you want to go down this path then stick it into the other thread please. However if my moral sense is leading me to believe something that is untrue then it misleads me.

Doesn't matter is some other knowledge could change that.

If I had that knowledge then the moral repugnance would disappear and the premise would no longer be true. The claim still remains valid.

Anyway, please stick it in the other thread if you want to continue.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Then you better change your conjecture, because you are stating that your moral feelings are deceiving you, not that they are operating just fine but lacking all the necessary information. If I see a man strike a woman, my moral feelings may tell me this is repugnant, but if the woman just tried to stab the man and I didn't see that, then it's not the fault of my moral feelings being deceptive or defective. I predict that ignoring this flaw now will lead to your coming conclusion to be already open to question.

Re: A problem with some religous views Part 2.
 

I like what I read but you removed the explanations for making claims 1 and 2 - isn't some explanation useful.

[ QUOTE ]
Unless you are saying the reason can be , for example: both because god isn’t good and also because the religious view is mistaken

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats about right. At this stage, I don't want to make any assumptions about which of the possibilities in the conclusion are mutually exclusive.

I really appreciate your efforts and hope the thread will prove worthy.

chez

Re: A problem with some religous views Part 2.
 

chez

I thought the explanations got in the way - it was helpful for the rough draft - but as I understand it you are trying to formalize something. Maybe footnote them if you want to keep them in. (not a bad idea to keep 'em in, but definitly footnote, instead of in the middle of it all.) That will make it easier to read.

Yes, I just saw on your previous post that you do want the idea that it could be more than one.

Glad to help.

Nite, mate.

RJT

Re: A problem with some religous views Part 2.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Then you better change your conjecture, because you are stating that your moral feelings are deceiving you, not that they are operating just fine but lacking all the necessary information. If I see a man strike a woman, my moral feelings may tell me this is repugnant, but if the woman just tried to stab the man and I didn't see that, then it's not the fault of my moral feelings being deceptive or defective. I predict that ignoring this flaw now will lead to your coming conclusion to be already open to question.

[/ QUOTE ]

In your example:

I see the man hit the woman, my moral feelings lead me to believe the man is a bad man. This belief turns out to be wrong.

I want to call that being mislead by my moral feelings, I'm not claiming that my moral feelings are at fault in some way.

Have I missed your point or do I just need a way of clarifying this.

chez

Re: A problem with some religous views Part 2.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Then you better change your conjecture, because you are stating that your moral feelings are deceiving you, not that they are operating just fine but lacking all the necessary information. If I see a man strike a woman, my moral feelings may tell me this is repugnant, but if the woman just tried to stab the man and I didn't see that, then it's not the fault of my moral feelings being deceptive or defective. I predict that ignoring this flaw now will lead to your coming conclusion to be already open to question.

[/ QUOTE ]

In your example:

I see the man hit the woman, my moral feelings lead me to believe the man is a bad man. This belief turns out to be wrong.

I want to call that being mislead by my moral feelings, I'm not claiming that my moral feelings are at fault in some way.

Have I missed your point or do I just need a way of clarifying this.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

That was my point. But if you are defining that situation as being mislead by your moral feelings, then I'm with you so far and accept your premise.

Re: A problem with some religous views Part 2.
 

No-one seems to have a problem so far, so next claim:

If there is a god of the sort envisaged by religon then exactly one of the follwoing is true:

My moral sense tells me nothing about what this god wants be to believe or do.
My moral sense is evidence of what god wants me to believe. or do.


Further if this god is absolutely good then exactly one of the follwoing is true:

My moral sense tells me nothing about what is absolutly right or wrong.
My moral sense is evidence of what is abolutely right or wrong.

anything contentious?


chez

Re: A problem with some religous views Part 2.
 

[ QUOTE ]
If a religous type god exists and is absolutely good then exactly one of the following is true:

My moral sense tells me nothing about what is absolutly right or wrong.
My moral sense is evidence of what is abolutely right or wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]


Suppose the first of these options, then my moral sense which seems to me to tell me what is absolutely right or wrong doesn't tell me anything at all.

It is not the case that the conclusion is wrong but rectifiable with more knowledge, rather my moral sense is a fiction and god deceives me about he wants me to do/believe.

If god deceives me about this then he might deceive me about anything and I have no method of deciding what he wants me to believe.

Hence I cannot believe in any religon unless the second option is true and my moral sense is evidence about what is absolutely right or wrong.


If this is correct then I am going argue from claim 2 and 'my moral sense is evidence about what is absolutely right or wrong' directly to the conclusion.

chez

Re: A problem with some religous views Part 2.
 

chez,

So that I am clear - you are starting with new claims right - independent of yesterday‘s? Or are you continuing from the statements made yesterday? If you are continuing from yesterday’s then I have to reread what you are saying now - haven’t had much sleep lately?

RJT

Re: A problem with some religous views Part 2.
 

[ QUOTE ]
chez,

So that I am clear - you are starting with new claims right - independent of yesterday‘s? Or are you continuing from the statements made yesterday? If you are continuing from yesterday’s then I have to reread what you are saying now - haven’t had much sleep lately?

RJT

[/ QUOTE ]

New claim, totally independent.

chez

Re: A problem with some religous views Part 2.
 

Chez,

I am not quite sure now what you mean by your moral sense. Seems to assume things that I hadn’t thought about before. I am assuming that under these scenarios you have no knowledge of this religion or other religions. Can I assume you must delete any knowledge of philosophy, too? Where did you get any moral sense at all here is my question? I need to catch up to where you are here - if you think it is me being a dense, then I’ll reread.

RJT

Re: A problem with some religous views Part 2.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Chez,

I am not quite sure now what you mean by your moral sense. Seems to assume things that I hadn’t thought about before. I am assuming that under these scenarios you have no knowledge of this religion or other religions. Can I assume you must delete any knowledge of philosophy, too? Where did you get any moral sense at all here is my question? I need to catch up to where you are here - if you think it is me being a dense, then I’ll reread.

RJT

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think you need assume no knowledge of religon or philosophy.

By moral sense, I mean the feeling that some things are right and some things are wrong.

Although my intellectual understanding of how things work, and of the specific situation being considered does have a considerable influence on my moral feeling, I do still experience a feeling of rightness or wrongness that is similar to pain or pleasure.

One common dispute between theists and atheiests is whether these feelings are evolved for evolutionary advantage or whether they are god given.

Does that make sense?

chez

Re: A problem with some religous views Part 2.
 

Are you saying that your moral sense is just the belief that "right" and "wrong" actions exist? Are you not making any claims about how accurately your moral sense judges actions to be right or wrong?

Re: A problem with some religous views Part 2.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Are you saying that your moral sense is just the belief that "right" and "wrong" actions exist? Are you not making any claims about how accurately your moral sense judges actions to be right or wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]

No its not the claim that right and wrong actions exist. I'm assuming we all agree that feelings of rightness and wrongness exists and that's what I mean by moral sense.

The claims are about these feeling (under the assumption that there is a religous type god).

Does that make sense. Its tough to explain and we may need to resort to example but I'll have to get some sleep first.

chez

Re: A problem with some religous views Part 2.
 

Maybe I'm not following you. You say you are assuming the existence of a god for this question, so this is how I understand your point: I have feelings of right and wrong. This is either

A) a moral compass inserted by that god, reflecting his/her/it's moral beliefs, or

B) these feelings are nothing more than random emotions that mislead me, and have no relation to the moral beliefs of that god.

My question is, are you speaking in completely general terms? Are you saying that BECAUSE you have feelings of right and wrong, they must either be faculties put in place by that god or they must be leading you astray from god's feelings?

The way I read it (you say your moral feelings are "evidence" of what is exactly right or wrong), you seem to say that it doesn't matter how accurate your sense of right and wrong is. Kinda like saying god gave you the equipment, but no guarantee that it works. But the mere fact that you have the equipment points to a god who wants you to be able to make moral judgments.

Am I anywhere close?

Re: A problem with some religous views Part 2.
 

[ QUOTE ]
My question is, are you speaking in completely general terms? Are you saying that BECAUSE you have feelings of right and wrong, they must either be faculties put in place by that god or they must be leading you astray from god's feelings?

[/ QUOTE ]
It sounds close but I think I'm saying something slightly different. If (religous type) god then he must be responsible for me having the feelings. Also the feelings seem to be telling about what is right and wrong.

Then either they are not telling me anything about what is right or wrong (this is the option I am currently claiming can be dismissed) or the feelings are evidence of what is right and wrong.



[ QUOTE ]
The way I read it (you say your moral feelings are "evidence" of what is exactly right or wrong), you seem to say that it doesn't matter how accurate your sense of right and wrong is. Kinda like saying god gave you the equipment, but no guarantee that it works.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, if my argument is right to this point then all I am establishing is that they are evidence in a similar way to how smoke is evidence of a fire.


[ QUOTE ]
Am I anywhere close?

[/ QUOTE ]
Real close to what I am trying to say. Don't know how close to agreeing [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]


chez