Mind Boggling

[RJT]

NotReady's "murder is OK" point is simply a way to put things in perspective is all. Albeit, not a pretty perspective. Likewise, if one values curing cancer for, then go for it.

For me, I can say: why all the fuss about about prolonging the longevity of one's life? Or the longevity of the human race for that matter? What is the goal here, to have a better quality (sans cancer) of more of the same (so we can say that we accomplished what the dinasuars didn't?)

[andyfox]

In a book I'm currently reading about the Crusades, I came across this yeesterday:

"Men were genuinely devout in their attitude to Christianity. It was a religious ethos that relied more on action than contemplation; indeed, outside of the monasteries few men could read. Nevertheless, Man was acutely aware of the existence of sin in the world. 'Life on earth' was seen as a proving ground for life in the hereafter. Doomed as he was to sin against God, Man must do something to achieve forgiveness for those sins. Only then could he hope to be spared the horrors of hell when this life eneded, and the next began. The inner thoughts of these people were probably rarely motivated by complicated theological discussions, but were driven by these very fundamental and uncomplicated beliefs. The vision of divine punishment was a terrifyingly real one to the people of the era. Its most obvious manifestation was the fear that the world was about to end, both in the year 1000 and also as the thousandth anniversary of the death of Christ approached. These millenarian manifestations are the more extreme demonstrations of the fear of retribution that haunted the minds of many at that time."

I suppose such was understandable in the tenth and eleventh centuries. I share your perplexity at such thinking in the 21st.

[RxForMoreCowbell]

Take the maxim "Give your children greater opportunities than you have had yourself." This is not biblical, it does not necessarily have anything to do with God, and I would guess the majority of both believers and non-believers in the US agree it is a noble goal. Is this wasteful?

[ QUOTE ]
I suppose such was understandable in the tenth and eleventh centuries. I share your perplexity at such thinking in the 21st.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is very perplexing. I can totaly understand how during the time of Jesus's life (or even the next 1850 years after that) people genuinely must have believed that there was something (god?) controlling everything. Events such as thunder and lightning and earthquakes were totally unexplainable. But given what we have learned in the past 100 years, the fact that every single event occuring on earth can be explained through science, that someone can still believe in god and base a lot of their belief on writings of comparatively naive and unintelligent people.......is just beyond me.

NotReady is really layin the ol' BJU special on us. I'll take a shot at it.
Your definition of 'meaning' is different from others'. Your biased definition is one that exults some 'ultimate meaning,' one that many of us have given up on. There is meaning apart from ultimate meaning. What meaning does a dove have? Why the hell should it feed it's children if there is no dove god? Why are they here? Why did our god make doves if they're a waste? Don't even get me started on the trees. We're told to find meaning in things, so we do. 150 years ago having the newest, hippest shoes wasn't very meaningful. Today it is for some people.

I understand that you're saying 'human' effort is wasted if there is no god, but does that mean all effort from anything with no god is a waste? Obviously not. Try to take the children away from a lion and you'll find out pretty quick why it feeds them. The lion needs no lion god to logically come to the conclusion to feed it's children.

Things are a waste only in how much meaning you put into it. So of course you think that without your understanding of the word meaning (ultimate) all things are wasted. My understanding is not one that means ultimate meaning. I don't find much meaning in my girlfriend's love of expensive clothing, so I think it's a waste to spend money on it, whereas she finds meaning in being hip. I don't find much meaning in playing golf, so I think it's a waste of my time to do so. I'm an agnostic, so I've already accepted that if there is no god then everything I've done is meaningless in the ultimate sense. So I find meaning in things that make me a little happier. I know I'm an insignificant being and that my actions mean nothing, but that doesn't doom me to some illogical existence.

Why cure cancer if no god? Wow. If you're suggesting one has to believe in a god to logically come to the conclusion that ending this person's suffering (or many for that matter) I really hope that one day you don't believe in a god to realize what a preposterous statement that is. I don't want to see suffering, and I don't need a god to feel bad for someone. Why not murder? Maybe because we don't want to? Don't need to? We'll go to jail if we get caught? Don't have the stomach for it? We're brought up being told it's horrible and therefore believe it? There are a bunch of different reasons not to kill. For some people all they need is one reason to kill. For some people they'd need many reasons. These reasons are why we deem some killing fine and others horrendous. Obviously it would be self-destructive to let serial murderers run around with impunity, so we made a law against. I'm sure we've all wanted to kill someone before, and we all had reasons keeping us back. My biggest reason for not killing the [censored] that cut me off is because I realize I'm just fuming and I'll get over it in a minute, I'd feel bad for the person I just killed, I don't want to go to jail. Your reason is that you'll go to hell. If you believed in no god your reasons for not wanting to kill would roughly resemble mine, and you'd still have that snag because you've been told from birth that it's bad. Those people that've had their reasons not to kill overridden do kill, and many have done it in the name of god. People more religious than you, people that have followed the bible closer than you, people that lived by the word of god only, have killed. Without that 'moral' snag because they were brought up to believe it's okay to kill for certain reasons in the name of god.

Your meaning of 'morality' is linked to a god. So of course when you say if there is no god there is none of your morality. My morality is run by where I live and how I was brought up. Go back a few thousand years and raping little boys wasn't looked down upon in certain cultures. I know you'll accuse me of the omni-mentioned is/ought dichotomy. But I'm not moving to an ought. There is no ought. For some, if they cannot feed their children without killing the people down the road, that's enough of a reason to kill Ted and Nancy Johnson.. For you, you've got your god to worry about other than your children, so starving children isn't enough of a reason. Christians who thought they were being moral have killed, and they haven't thought twice about it.

People can be raised to believe anything about the world. If we were raised to not to care about women and raping was a good thing, we'd do it more. Southerners 200 years ago were brought up to respect white women and not to rape them. They were also brought up to believe that they need not respect black women and that they could rape their slaves. So, many did. A lot of them were Christians.

Some were brought up to believe killing deer with a gun was bad, so they don't. Some were brought up to believe killing deer was a sport. Deer could easily be replaced with 'black person' or 'poor people' or anything. In our world, now, pretty much everyone is raised to believe killing is wrong and that there are consequences for it. Which is why most don't. Even you are not immune. If you were brought up believe it was okay to rape, and you enjoyed it, you would. Would you be wrong? By our standards, yes, by theirs, no you wouldn't be.

[Trantor]

[ QUOTE ]


The point is that morality can't be justified apart from God. That means morality is irrational. There's no reason to do unto others, to be altruistic. At least not beyond the pragmatic.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe the point of disagreement is down to the meaning of rational in the posts. I guess this is why philosphers spend so much time defining their terms to avoid talking at cross purposes.


This is not a proper conclusion from your premise. There is no external "justification" for morality in the sense that one can say such and such an act is immoral because God says so (by book of God , personal revelation or however the absolute code is defined by you) (IMHO)

But I am a moral being. I certainly consider the suggested rape immoral. You say my belief that it is immoral is irrational because not based on an external absolute.

At a first level I would say, so what if it is irrational. I may agree my belief in the immorality of rape is irrational but that does not mean I therefore must find the rape OK. It just means I follow a moral code which is irrational.

Just as I say you follow a moral code which is irrationl (I cannot see how any belief in God to be rational so I consider the absolute code you follow to be born out of irrationality).

But, what I mean by rational is that there is a perfectly rational reason why people can and do act in a "moral" fashion without the need for an absolute guide. The rational explanation is that we have evolved to act this way.


The big flaw in your argument, as another recently pointed out is your jump (paraphrasing) from no absolute moral code and purpose/meaning to our existance (in a divine plan sense)to there is no reason to act morally, to well you must believe rape and murder is OK. This is patently not true!

There _are_ reasons why people will act "morally" even without an absolute code...because that is human nature as tempered by upbringing (mores of the social group you are raised up in).

[Trantor]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

My car is of mindless matter but I care about its function.


[/ QUOTE ]

You're trying to base morality on pragmatism, utilitarianism. Your car is useful to you, you have an investment in it, so you care about it. But if you don't care about some woman you meet in a bar, and what's useful to you is to rape her, your pragmatism not only won't stop you but will encourage you. If Hitler sees the Jews as a pollution of the human race it becomes useful to him to eliminate them. Pragmatism.

[/ QUOTE ]

No I am not. You asked why care about the functions of mindless matter and I gave you a reason! I didn't say caring and not caring was the basis of any moral sytem, mine or anyone elses.

[David Sklansky]

"I don't think humans can't have a moral code. On the contrary, they have them in abundance. And there are many similarities and many differences between them. If there is no absolute standard of morality(as well as logic and value judgments), then there isn't really anything we usually define as morality. There's no right and wrong, there's just what we do, what we can get away with, what the cops can catch and punish. So the guy with the biggest gun is the most right."

Will you please go back to debating silly Calvinism where you are easy pickings and stop arguing with children.

There will be no agreement, he will never cede any point, whereas with a little justification we will. We're not so arrogant as to beleive we're absolutely right on every matter, he is. To me it seems as if there is no point arguing with someone when there is absolutely no chance of changing his mind. I'm done with this thread...

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The followers of those religions then say humans can only be moral if they believe the codification provided an absolute code becauuse it was God given!


[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't what I'm saying. I've said in other threads that atheists often outperform theists in moral behavior. Nor is the issue that Christians would all of a sudden start behaving worse if they didn't believe in God.

The point is that morality can't be justified apart from God. That means morality is irrational. There's no reason to do unto others, to be altruistic. At least not beyond the pragmatic.

Some people embrace that. Existentialists teach that we should create our own values. This is the old Greek "man is the measure of all things".

If that is true, then the universe is meaningless. Nietzsche accepted that, as did Sartre and Russell. The problem is the whole thing is now irrational. Whether you go out and commit murder because the universe is irrational isn't the point. I'm just trying to get people to understand that it is the non-theistic worldview that is irrational. The only possible basis for logic, morality and science is if God exists. Not because non-theists are illogical, immoral and unscientific in their daily operations. But because their whole system is irrational. They have to make a leap of faith to do logic, morality and science.

[/ QUOTE ]

You just haven't established this. No leap of faith is required to do logic. Pure science can be put in logical form which requires no leap of faith, morality is non rational and none the worse for it as far as I can see.

The only point you've ever made is that in the end it doesn't matter. I can be as logical, moral etc. as I like and in the end it doesn't matter.

The circle can't be squared but in the end it doesn't matter.

la di da di da but in the end it doesn't matter.

Does it matter that in the end it doesn't matter.? Seems to matter to you, bothers some people but, guess what, in the end it doesn't matter.


chez