Two Plus Two Older Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Older Archives > Other Topics > Science, Math, and Philosophy

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 09-25-2005, 10:45 AM
chezlaw chezlaw is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: London, England
Posts: 58
Default A problem with some religous views. Conclusion

Continuing despite the enormous interest.

Assuming the following have been established: (past two threads if you want to discuss please)

1.
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'

2.
If a religous type god exists and is absolutely good then my moral sense is evidence of what is abolutely right or wrong.

it then follows that

If a religous type good god exists and my moral sense tells me some view of him is morally repugnant then

the moral evidence misleads me or the religous view is mistaken (or both)


------------------

Consider a religous view that claims it should be believed because of the evidence, and that requires a very high degree of belief.

No evidence of something that may have happened many years ago can possibly overcome the immediately received moral evidence to the extent that I can believe a morally repugnant religous view with the required degree of belief.

Define a MRE Religon as one that:
causes some people moral repugnance
demands a high degree of belief based on evidence.
believes in a good god

then

No rational person who is morally repulsed by an MPE religon can accept that religon.


That's the theory, lots of exciting applications: showing some religous beliefs are irrational, Pascal's wager and many more.

chez
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 09-25-2005, 11:12 AM
NotReady NotReady is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 70
Default Re: A problem with some religous views. Conclusion

[ QUOTE ]

No rational person who is morally repulsed by an MPE religon can accept that religon.


[/ QUOTE ]

What happened to being deceived by your moral sense?

Your view of hell and what it entails could be wrong.

If God is just,righteous and loving He has an infinitely higher moral sense than humans. So whatever form punishment takes will be in line with God's character. Using your moral sense to ratonalize rejection of God is simply placing your own judgment above God's. You say:

[ QUOTE ]

If a religous type god exists and is absolutely good then my moral sense is evidence of what is abolutely right or wrong.


[/ QUOTE ]

You leave out the facts of sin and finitude. I believe our conscience is given to us by God as part of the image of God. But it is no more an infallible guide than is our reason which is also a gift from God but subject to error due to sin and finitude.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 09-25-2005, 11:23 AM
chezlaw chezlaw is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: London, England
Posts: 58
Default Re: A problem with some religous views. Conclusion

[ QUOTE ]
What happened to being deceived by your moral sense?

[/ QUOTE ]
Its at the end of part 2. I was brief to get to then quickly but all evidence can be deceiving. Anacdotal evidence of someones interpretation of events cannot possibly overcome presently available evidence to the extent required.

We can go into this a lot more if you like, can we dit it in the part 2 thread?


[ QUOTE ]
Your view of hell and what it entails could be wrong

[/ QUOTE ]
Of course it could but that doesn't make any difference to my claim.


[ QUOTE ]
You leave out the facts of sin and finitude. I believe our conscience is given to us by God as part of the image of God. But it is no more an infallible guide than is our reason which is also a gift from God but subject to error due to sin and finitude.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sounds reasonable but I'm not claiming its an infallable guide.

chez
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 09-25-2005, 11:27 AM
chezlaw chezlaw is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: London, England
Posts: 58
Default Re: A problem with some religous views. Conclusion

[ QUOTE ]
Your view of hell and what it entails could be wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

If this is a genuine objection on your part then it supports what I am saying.

If changing the view of heaven/hell removes the moral repugance then it ceases to be an MRE religon.

chez
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 09-25-2005, 08:18 PM
RJT RJT is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 111
Default Re: A problem with some religous views. Conclusion

I will definitely return to helping you, chez. I got kind of sidetracked. Besides, Sunday (still Sunday here) is supposed to be a day of rest for us Catholics.

Nah, it isn’t work (not easy though). I enjoy it.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 09-25-2005, 10:25 PM
RJT RJT is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 111
Default Re: A problem with some religous views. Conclusion

chez, wow it was easy this time. Nothing hard to understand. I taught you well to edit well - lol.

Anyway, I think I follow all that you say. I also think I agree with it. I want to review it all before I give you my "imprimatur". *

Before then, for now I did want to tell you this:

I am not assuming you are referring to any particular religion in you posts. But for your edification, I will point out to you that if one understands modern-day Catholicism, one has no conflict here.

We do not follow because of the evidence (and, too, our God is not like your other quotes). In fact it is almost the opposite for us. Jesus said "Blessed are those who have believed and have not seen." He was referring to (doubting) Thomas who would not believe until he put his hands in Jesus’ wounds after the Resurrection.

p.s. I wouldn’t mind talking about your “moral sense” thing when you finish this. I want to discuss what you have in mind where the moral sense comes from (especially if not religion, perhaps it is philosophy - like you say -for another post).

* In case you don't know an “imprimatur” is basically "an official stamp" our Church uses to give its signature to a particular book to show the reader that the book follows Doctrine. It is mostly used for editions of the Bible and things of a more formal nature - not anything like rating literature verboten.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 09-25-2005, 11:38 PM
chezlaw chezlaw is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: London, England
Posts: 58
Default Re: A problem with some religous views. Conclusion

[ QUOTE ]
chez, wow it was easy this time. Nothing hard to understand. I taught you well to edit well - lol.

Anyway, I think I follow all that you say. I also think I agree with it. I want to review it all before I give you my "imprimatur". *

Before then, for now I did want to tell you this:

I am not assuming you are referring to any particular religion in you posts. But for your edification, I will point out to you that if one understands modern-day Catholicism, one has no conflict here.

We do not follow because of the evidence (and, too, our God is not like your other quotes). In fact it is almost the opposite for us. Jesus said "Blessed are those who have believed and have not seen." He was referring to (doubting) Thomas who would not believe until he put his hands in Jesus’ wounds after the Resurrection.

[/ QUOTE ]

No religon that admits it requires faith can ever be shown to be wrong by rational argument, as you've pointed out yourself. Against that, no-one can be critised or justifiably punished for not having that faith.

The type of religous view I have in mind are those that insist they must be believed because of evidence which is itself very weak, and then they say if you're not convinced by it you will be condemned by a god who is good.

DS argues against such religons by Baysian inference or appealing to the views of the most intelligent. DS's result is stronger as it also deals with religons that aren't morally repugnant. However I think his methods are more contentious (not saying they're wrong)

My method is a logical proof (a correct one I hope and claim. I've made the arguments as explicit as I can so that others can find any flaws) but does not touch religons which demand too much from the evidence but are not morally repugnant.

chez
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 09-25-2005, 11:51 PM
RJT RJT is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 111
Default Re: A problem with some religous views. Conclusion

Well, I got you back here, chez. I mean, I am with you in this endeavor.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 09-26-2005, 12:08 AM
RJT RJT is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 111
Default Re: A problem with some religous views. Conclusion

chez,

I think if (when) you are finished we need to talk about the moral sense thing. See, what I am thinking (haven’t thought it out yet and I had a similar thought to what I am saying here we can explore sometime too) is that one's moral sense is not necessarily innate. I understand you to be saying that it pretty much is. We need to discuss that. Before you can offer your final proof up for challenge I think this point needs to be discussed or explained.

I am suggesting that one's moral sense has a lot to do with learning. I am not saying I am right and you are wrong. But, I don’t think it is a given. Do you agree that now or at least sometime before your logic is final and ready to be tested, this needs discussed?

Or am I not understanding what you mean by “moral sense”.

If I misunderstood then ok.

Either way I think you should footnote what you mean by moral sense. Unless this is something that most know what you mean - then simply explain to me here.

RJT
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 09-26-2005, 12:24 AM
chezlaw chezlaw is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: London, England
Posts: 58
Default Re: A problem with some religous views. Conclusion

I don't think anything specific about moral sense matters providing we all agree that feelings of rightness and wrongness exist. By feelings I mean something similar to pain and pleasure.

I don't think it has to be innate, I certainly didn't intentionally assume that it was.

chez
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:49 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions Inc.