A problem with some religous views

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

So with the correct premise, is it possible the I do have that moral feeling and none of the three possibilities in the conclusion are true.


[/ QUOTE ]

Not that I can see.

[/ QUOTE ]

Great, I do believe we understand each other.

siegfriedandroy, txag007, anyone else, think we are missing anything?

chez

[DougShrapnel]

A 4th option where all 3 are correct was brought up by me and 2nded is possible, provided something is hidden from you. For instance in this particular case, the nature of heaven is hidden from you. If we assume heaven is exactly like this world, and no other relavant info is hidden, then at least 1 of the 3 options must be correct. But if heaven is different, then your moral sense could be correct, God could still be good, and the views of the religoin could still be correct.

[chezlaw]

Thanks for moving it here.

kidluckee agreed with you and gave this example:

[ 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 ]

I responded:
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

kidluckee responded
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

okay with you, or have we missed your point.

chez

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
okay with you, or have we missed your point.

[/ QUOTE ] Well it brings up the legitimacy of your abilty to make the moral judgement. It basically reduces this problem to.

My moral sense tells me that a relgious view is repugnant. I am either right or wrong. It does not however say anything about the religous view or nature of god. Only if you are right does it say something about the nature of God, or the correctness of examined religous view.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
okay with you, or have we missed your point.

[/ QUOTE ] Well it brings up the legitimacy of your abilty to make the moral judgement. It basically reduces this problem to.

My moral sense tells me that a relgious view is repugnant. I am either right or wrong. It does not however say anything about the religous view or nature of god. Only if you are right does it say something about the nature of God, or the correctness of examined religous view.

[/ QUOTE ]

I more or less agree but I'm going to introduce some more stuff which I will claim does add significance to my moral sense leading me to the wrong conclusions.

For now, I need to establish that there is nothing invalid about this claim. Let me know if you're not satisfied about that and you can bash me on the rest later.

chez

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
okay with you, or have we missed your point.

[/ QUOTE ] Well it brings up the legitimacy of your abilty to make the moral judgement. It basically reduces this problem to.

My moral sense tells me that a relgious view is repugnant. I am either right or wrong. It does not however say anything about the religous view or nature of god. Only if you are right does it say something about the nature of God, or the correctness of examined religous view.

[/ QUOTE ]

I more or less agree but I'm going to introduce some more stuff which I will claim does add significance to my moral sense leading me to the wrong conclusions.

For now, I need to establish that there is nothing invalid about this claim. Let me know if you're not satisfied about that and you can bash me on the rest later.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

chez if it's not a oversite please continue.

[jester710]

My point is that your conclusions might not necessarily follow from your premise. Bear with me a second while I review everything.

Premise: Certain religions state that God punishes people for non-belief. My moral sense tells me this is wrong.

Conclusions:
1. My moral sense is misleading me.
2. God is not good.
3. Those religions are wrong.

Let's assume #1 is correct and you're being misled. It seems to me that you're saying that, if you are indeed being misled, then God is good. However, it could be the case that you are being misled on this specific point, and yet God is not good for another, totally unrelated reason.

If you're just trying to prove or disprove God's goodness on this one particular issue (condemning people for nonbelief), then I think you might still be ok. If, however, you're trying to use this issue to postulate about God's goodness on the whole, then I don't think it's logically airtight.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
My point is that your conclusions might not necessarily follow from your premise. Bear with me a second while I review everything.

Premise: Certain religions state that God punishes people for non-belief. My moral sense tells me this is wrong.

Conclusions:
1. My moral sense is misleading me.
2. God is not good.
3. Those religions are wrong.

Let's assume #1 is correct and you're being misled. It seems to me that you're saying that, if you are indeed being misled, then God is good. However, it could be the case that you are being misled on this specific point, and yet God is not good for another, totally unrelated reason.

If you're just trying to prove or disprove God's goodness on this one particular issue (condemning people for nonbelief), then I think you might still be ok. If, however, you're trying to use this issue to postulate about God's goodness on the whole, then I don't think it's logically airtight.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not trying to conclude anything about god's goodness on the whole from this argument. Just that the premise guarantees that at least one of the three possiblities in the conclusion is true.

I'm officially asleep at the moment but hope that makes some sort of sense.

chez

[txag007]

I cannot reason with an unreasonable person. It can't be done.

[ QUOTE ]
I cannot reason with an unreasonable person. It can't be done.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know the feeling.