A problem with some religous views Part 2.

[DougShrapnel]

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.

[RJT]

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."

[chezlaw]

[ 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 ]
[ 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.

[chezlaw]

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

[RJT]

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

[chezlaw]

[ 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 ]
[ 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.

[chezlaw]

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

[chezlaw]

[ 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