I have said yes to give a lecture about Religion: The Bible

[a completely inoffensive name]

You are confusing morality with "utilitarianism". Morality just "is", utilitarianism is the thing you try to work out where we try to agree together what we believe is right.

I am not a utilitarian. And I didn't say we collectively agree on what we believe is right, I said we agree on what we find is right. Hence, I am still arguing about absolute morality.

In answer to your question, it must be infallible because it must be true in all instances - ergo you require the Arbiter.

Just because it is true in all instances doesn't mean it is infallible. Human's are flawed creatures and by trying to adhere to infallible standards, our natural flaws will cause distortions of the original essence of the moral laws. It seems to me that if God in all his wisdom created a flawed species, he would have created a flawed but more intuitive system of morality that would suit humans better in their goal of trying to behave according to God's wishes.

A moral statement looks like this: killing is wrong.

A Utilitarian statement looks like this: Killing is wrong unless it will save someone else's life.

They are not the same.

They kind of are. You act as if a moral code cannot provide addendum to certain laws that still hold true in all cases. If God said Murder is wrong unless it will save someone's life, then in his infallibility, such statement is true all the time.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Of course you consider it evidence. As you lack a scientific base you have to grasp at straws like this.

Philosophically speaking, not scientifically speaking.

I believe in an absolute morality, it's just the way I see the world - and that requires God.

This is not a rationally held belief, it is however a rationally explained one. If my current rationale were disproved I would not continue to cling to it, but I would go looking for another one rather than change my position. If I could not find one I would conclude I was too stupid. This is the essense of faith - while it may be rationally defended it cannot be rationally held.

It could easily be explained with cultural memes, or even racial memes.

As easy as: "If everyone did it, the society would not work, so we can't do it". The bigger the negative impact on society, the bigger the aversion for the action.

That could be true - but I don't believe it because it doesn't provide for absolutes, it's just a fancy way to explain utilitarianism.

Memes are also fun because the concept is, well, a meme, and that makes it (by Dawkins' own definition) unreliable as a philosophical concept. Which is great, because it's the ultimate example of being inside the Goldfish bowl of the universe, not outside looking in.

That's the point about God, in this instance, he's outside looking in so he sees and understands everything.

Fair point. Let me re-phrase: I can not see a possible defense for the action. But if someone had a logical defense, I would of course support it. But really, can you think of one?

So my rational mind is plenty enough, no need for God to whisper in my ear. And trust me, God and I are not on speaking terms after that Italian Catholic girl boarding school visited Austria anyway.

OK, so you don't believe in absolutes - you just have very strong preferences. They you don't need God for your moral system to work.

However, you do get "athiests" who talk about "good and evil" and they don't have a philosophical leg to stand on.

[Papewaio]

Curious. Couldn't good and evil with all of the universes shades of grey/gray be better summed up in a grey utilarian system rather then a black and white moral one?

Most moral codes deal with reality poorly. It is rather easy to formulate situations where the ten commandments are the wrong thing to do in a situation.

Thou shall not steal. Not a very moral code if it means letting a family member stave to death so that someone can make a bigger profit margin.

I'm sure others can write up better inverse situations where the ten commandments are in fact the wrong option. Thou wall not kill has already been done to death

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I am not a utilitarian. And I didn't say we collectively agree on what we believe is right, I said we agree on what we find is right. Hence, I am still arguing about absolute morality.

Then prepare for a rough ride.

Just because it is true in all instances doesn't mean it is infallible. Human's are flawed creatures and by trying to adhere to infallible standards, our natural flaws will cause distortions of the original essence of the moral laws. It seems to me that if God in all his wisdom created a flawed species, he would have created a flawed but more intuitive system of morality that would suit humans better in their goal of trying to behave according to God's wishes.

Our natural flaws are not relevent to the existence of morality, merely our ability to find it. If a moral principle is always true, it is always true and applicable and therefore perfect.

Your utterence is typical of Christian attempts to grasp the concept of Original Sin as it relates to morality - this is likely a reflection of your moral frame of reference, which supports my point. You cannot take bits of Christianity's moral system and hollow out the centre without reprecutions.

They kind of are. You act as if a moral code cannot provide addendum to certain laws that still hold true in all cases. If God said Murder is wrong unless it will save someone's life, then in his infallibility, such statement is true all the time.

Is or is not, not "kind of". You prove my point, they appear practically the same but philosphically they are not.

The second case is not a perfect moral principle because it causes infinite regress - if you kill to save someone's life then it is right to kill you to save the person you are going to kill, this continues ad infinitum until everybody in the world is dead or someone makes the "bad" choice and doesn't kill. Worse, because the moral imperative requires you to kill (remember that is the right choice) it causes you to violate the general "do not kill" principle, meaning that both choices can be simultaneously right and wrong. Remember, a moral system has only "right" and "wrong" so if it is right to kill in defence of someone's life it is "wrong" not to.

This causes moral paralysis.

On the other hand, if it is always wrong to kill then you either have one bad decision (the original act) two (the guy who kills the original actor) or none (someone stops the original actor from killing anybody). At each point in the chain there is a clear right and wrong answer, and at each point in the chain this answer is the same.

You will argue that this causes problems in the real world, it has limited utility, but as part of a philosophical system it works and if nobody ever violates it will work in the real world too.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Curious. Couldn't good and evil with all of the universes shades of grey/gray be better summed up in a grey utilarian system rather then a black and white moral one?

Most moral codes deal with reality poorly. It is rather easy to formulate situations where the ten commandments are the wrong thing to do in a situation.

Thou shall not steal. Not a very moral code if it means letting a family member stave to death so that someone can make a bigger profit margin.

I'm sure others can write up better inverse situations where the ten commandments are in fact the wrong option. Thou wall not kill has already been done to death

In a moral system there is no grey - there is right and a hell of a lot of wrong.

This is, incidently, why being a Christian is not actually "easy" - that's the world I live in.

Thou shalt not steal - it is wrong to steal what belongs to someone else.

It is also wrong to allow another person to starve.

Morally speaking, the wrong is done by the food magnet if the person dies, not the family member.

The problem with the inverse argument is that it perpetuates the "wrong", it cascades through all the actors, while if a single person starves to death and another person does not steal the wrong stops with the magnate.

You are right that such a system has percieved practical problems in a purely physical world, but morality is a metaphysical and spiritual concept which does not make physical determinations.

[Kadagar_AV]

Philosophically speaking, not scientifically speaking.

Strictly philosophically speaking, you could prove pretty much anything. Let us have at least one foot in reality here, shall we?

I believe in an absolute morality, it's just the way I see the world - and that requires God.

Well, I don't. So no God needed.

This is not a rationally held belief, it is however a rationally explained one. If my current rationale were disproved I would not continue to cling to it, but I would go looking for another one rather than change my position. If I could not find one I would conclude I was too stupid. This is the essense of faith - while it may be rationally defended it cannot be rationally held.

I think you made my point for me.

That could be true - but I don't believe it because it doesn't provide for absolutes, it's just a fancy way to explain utilitarianism.

You don't believe it because it doesn't provide for absolutes, and you require absolutes because you have a faith that requires absolutes... Circle reasoning much lately, are we?

Memes are also fun because the concept is, well, a meme, and that makes it (by Dawkins' own definition) unreliable as a philosophical concept. Which is great, because it's the ultimate example of being inside the Goldfish bowl of the universe, not outside looking in.

I see "meme" as a nice word invention that put a name to something we all know exists and can observe directly, and thus believe in. Anyone who had a parent, or parent figure, will have a natural understanding for what a meme is.

That's the point about God, in this instance, he's outside looking in so he sees and understands everything.

No, God is inside your head. You are just malcontent in your little glass bowl and fervently wish something bigger would bother to have a peek.

OK, so you don't believe in absolutes - you just have very strong preferences. They you don't need God for your moral system to work.

Correct :)

However, you do get "athiests" who talk about "good and evil" and they don't have a philosophical leg to stand on.

Actually, no. As an atheist I don't believe in good and evil, as no one can define it or prove its existence. Take Bruto as an example, I don't think he woke up thinking "hmm, I want to be evil today". A more modern example, Breivik. We do not brush him off as evil, we send him to psychiatrists checking if his mind is fully functional, then we have a weeks long process trying to figure out why he deemed it okay to do what he did. I think that makes more sense than brushing him and his actions off as "evil", you don't?

[ICantSpellDawg]

Actually, no. As an atheist I don't believe in good and evil, as no one can define it or prove its existence. Take Bruto as an example, I don't think he woke up thinking "hmm, I want to be evil today". A more modern example, Breivik. We do not brush him off as evil, we send him to psychiatrists checking if his mind is fully functional, then we have a weeks long process trying to figure out why he deemed it okay to do what he did. I think that makes more sense than brushing him and his actions off as "evil", you don't?

No need to analyze it. If there is no right and no wrong, then I would prefer to do what he did to, lets say, playing football every Saturday or watching re-runs of "Friends" because: It tremendously affected the lives of thousands or more, it took courage and planning and was interesting, it had international significance, it won him free food and lodging for life, among other things. Some of the most peaceful people I've met would find reading about Breivik's exploits as more interesting than reading about a soccer game or gardening (I love gardening, but reading about it? cmon). He deemed it ok because there was no reason not to. It's all just fun and games, everybody dies eventually, nothing matters, why not. Most of us here are wargamers. Absent right and wrong, what Breivik did was probably a downright barrel of fun, don't pretend it wasn't when you spend all day mass killing digital sprites that look like people.

I disagree with this understanding of the world, life, soul, morality; but it will become a more popular understanding as people shed themselves of the "shackles of morality/faith/religion". Gravity pulls you toward your baser instincts, absent a reason to elevate yourself you sink. We, as a society, still benefit from "atheists" who were raised Christian and still carry the husk of that morality, but their children will carry less, and there children less still. It's gravity in action. It takes effort to keep from sinking and without effort, there is a downward spiral.

I'm not being negative, It would be negative if there were no truth, but there is and God's laws tell us that these things are evil and that it is good to struggle against them, even when it's hard to. I cling to the faith of my parents because they are the best people I've ever met and it would be a crying shame to let that die out with them. I know that what they do (most of the time) is the most altruistic thing possible and is very often extremely difficult. Their friends are the best people they've ever met and their friends kids know it, too. This is where our faith community comes from and it is more important for me to do what is right than it is for me to fit in. This is the tradition of the Bible to me. The story of the fight between the 2 world views I've described and their timeless tug-of-war struggle for our friends, the fence-sitters.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Our natural flaws are not relevent to the existence of morality, merely our ability to find it. If a moral principle is always true, it is always true and applicable and therefore perfect.

No. That is wrong. You are just pulling that out as a synonym when really that is just a non-sequitor. There is a universal right and wrong. It's infallible. Ok. That in no way means it's applicable to flawed beings. What you are saying is just taken from an abuse of the word infallible and instead of just claiming that it is infallible in it's assignment of values you now have left reality to claim that these universal values are values that can be upheld at all given times. Obviously such values are not able to be upheld at all given times, even the most devout and studied Christian will "sin" or make moral errors at some point, which means that these values are not always applicable which means your premise falls apart.

Again human fallibility makes any infallible moral system, fallible. If the moral system cannot be upheld consistently, then it is not a perfect moral system.

The second case is not a perfect moral principle because it causes infinite regress - if you kill to save someone's life then it is right to kill you to save the person you are going to kill, this continues ad infinitum until everybody in the world is dead or someone makes the "bad" choice and doesn't kill.

This is such a distorted caricature you have painted. A case of the essence or the spirit of the law being ignored by rigid adherence to the letter of the law. The laws are to communicate values, not to be values in themselves, even in absolute morality system. By killing me, the murderer then kills someone else and you claim that any reasonable man who is trying to follow the moral law will believe that that was the point of the moral law. This is silly and if your defense of your particular construction of absolute morality is based off these distortions of reality and by making sure definitions are set on your terms, then this will go nowhere because you have successfully locked yourself in a box.

You will argue that this causes problems in the real world, it has limited utility, but as part of a philosophical system it works and if nobody ever violates it will work in the real world too.

And this is where you contradict yourself. If nobody violates...., which is presupposing that humans are able to be flawless, which they are not, which is known to the infallible creature that designed this infallible morality. Which means this infallible create made an error in making a system that requires humans to be something which he knows cannot be. So he is not infallible at all.

[Kadagar_AV]

No need to analyze it. If there is no right and no wrong, then I would prefer to do what he did to, lets say, playing football every Saturday or watching re-runs of friends because: It tremendously affected the lives of thousands or more, it took courage and planning and was interesting, it had international significance, it won him free food and lodging for life, among other things. Some of the most peaceful people I've met would find reading about Breivik's exploits as more interesting than reading about a soccer game or gardening. He deemed it ok because there was no reason not to. It's all just fun and games, everybody dies eventually, nothing matters, why not.

I disagree with this understanding of the world, life, soul, morality; but it will become more popular understanding as people shed themselves of the "shackles of morality/faith/religion". Gravity pulls you toward your baser instincts, absent a reason to elevate yourself you sink. We still benefit from "atheists" who were raised Christian and still carry the husk of that morality, but their children will carry less, and there children less still. It's gravity in action. It takes effort to keep from sinking and without effort, there is a downward spiral.

I'm not being negative, It would be negative if there were no truth, but there is and God's laws tell us that these things are evil and that it is good to struggle against them, even when it's hard to.

Buddhists, Christians and Atheists think it is generally wrong to kill.

From that base of facts, how can you not draw the conclusion that this seem to be a human meme, not a religious one? You got the order of understanding wrong I am afraid. We invented religions to help spread human memes, not that the memes did originate in religion.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Buddhists, Christians and Atheists think it is generally wrong to kill.

From that base of facts, how can you not draw the conclusion that this seem to be a human meme, not a religious one? You got the order of understanding wrong I am afraid. We invented religions to help spread human memes, not that the memes did originate in religion.

I read and understand what you're saying. I think that you are confusing "wrong" with "impractical" as Phillip had mentioned. I am saying that we are under no obligation to agree with the majority.

BTW - sorry, but I've edited the heck out of that post since you've quoted it.

[Kadagar_AV]

I read and understand what you're saying. I think that you are confusing "wrong" with "impractical" as Phillip had mentioned. I am saying that we are under no obligation to agree with the majority.

BTW - sorry, but I've edited the heck out of that post since you've quoted it.

No, I meant "wrong".

Without looking to fantasies for approval/disapproval we have family, and society around us to worry about. My mum would not be very proud of me if I went off and killed people. Neither would my fiance. Neither would society at large.

I don't kill the people I don't like because it is impractical. The reason why I don't kill them is because I would feel shame in the eyes of the people whose opinion of me matters.

Shame is a biological function, just like any other, and it can be explained with the general evolutionary theory.

Thor, Buddha or Jesus has nothing to do with it.

Even if I had a 99% chance of getting away with murdering the other guy going for the job I want, that 1% chance of getting caught, and the repercussions from it, is enough to offset me from doing it.

Some people are different, they weight the odds differently. We call them psychopaths and science has even started to discover what part of their brain went wrong.

Again, no need to involve unicorns, extra-terrestrial beings or Gods.

[ICantSpellDawg]

No, I meant "wrong".

Without looking to fantasies for approval/disapproval we have family, and society around us to worry about. My mum would not be very proud of me if I went off and killed people. Neither would my fiance. Neither would society at large.

I don't kill the people I don't like because it is impractical. The reason why I don't kill them is because I would feel shame in the eyes of the people whose opinion of me matters.

Shame is a biological function, just like any other, and it can be explained with the general evolutionary theory.

Thor, Buddha or Jesus has nothing to do with it.

Even if I had a 99% chance of getting away with murdering the other guy going for the job I want, that 1% chance of getting caught, and the repercussions from it, is enough to offset me from doing it.

Some people are different, they weight the odds differently. We call them psychopaths and science has even started to discover what part of their brain went wrong.

Again, no need to involve unicorns, extra-terrestrial beings or Gods.

Ok. You have your opinions on why people do not/do things and I have mine. You don't kill people because you are risk averse and because your mom/fiancee probably wouldn't like it. I don't call that morality, I call that bashful sociopathy, but I digress. I don't kill people because God or, in your opinion, somebody pretending to be God told us not to thousands of years ago. Personally, I'm not worried what my parents think about my actions at this point in my life and I no longer use their shame as a reason to avoid anything. I use their actions as something inspiring to me and I seek to be like them even when they're gone, but Im not worried about them being ashamed of me even when I do things that are clearly shameful to them.

BTW, you have contradicted yourself,

I think that you are confusing "wrong" with "impractical" as Phillip had mentioned.

I've put the example in bold. No big deal, but there was a reason that I corrected your usage of the word "wrong" in your earlier post. Because, by your own admission, you were confusing the word wrong with the word impractical.

[Kadagar_AV]

Oh, and as a PS: You still have not explained: That if atheists, buddhists and christians all follow the same principle, then how can it be a divine principle? And even if so, which divinity??

It is not like people murder each other left and right just because they never heard of the bible, is it?

[Kadagar_AV]

I use their actions as something inspiring to me and I seek to be like them even when they're gone, but Im not worried about them being ashamed of me.

The first thing is called a meme. The second thing you said contradicts the first thing you said.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Oh, and as a PS: You still have not explained: That if atheists, buddhists and christians all follow the same principle, then how can it be a divine principle? And even if so, which divinity??

It is not like people murder each other left and right just because they never heard of the bible, is it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nostra_Aetate

[ICantSpellDawg]

The first thing is called a meme. The second thing you said contradicts the first thing you said.

I want to be like them because I believe it is the way God wants all of us to to be and my parents hit the nail on the head, not because I'm worried about shaming my parents. If I failed to live up to the standard, I wouldn't be afraid that my parents were shamed, but that I had betrayed God's will.

[Montmorency]

I wouldn't be afraid that my parents were shamed, but that I had betrayed God's will.

Why?

[ICantSpellDawg]

Because I believe that God created the universe and has a plan for us all. You may think that you have the world all figured out, but then women give birth to babies, dogs are just walking, stinking eating/pooping machines. Nothing in life makes sense by our rigid "logical" standards anyway, so why should I understand the overall purpose of everything? God says do this, I do this. God says do that, I do that. I try to use reason to the best of my ability, the rest I just "go with my gut..." as completely inoffensive name said it.

I've just given up the idea that I'm some perfect logically reasoning machine or that I'll ever be. Many people are brighter than I and are even more lost in the woods.

[Kadagar_AV]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nostra_Aetate

Oh, so out of all the religions over the last tens of thousands of years, Catholicism is of course the one who got it right. Who could have guessed that you as a Catholic would have come to that conclusion? Amazing how things all work out in the end, isn't it?

[Montmorency]

Your response is not constructed in a way that makes sense to me, syntactically. But anyway, I was specifically asking about:

God says do this, I do this. God says do that, I do that.

Let's say your God exists. Why obey?

[ICantSpellDawg]

Oh, so out of all the religions over the last tens of thousands of years, Catholicism is of course the one who got it right. Who could have guessed that you as a Catholic would have come to that conclusion? Amazing how things all work out in the end, isn't it?

Yes, amazing, isn't it. Fortunately, I didn't need to go far.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Your response is not constructed in a way that makes sense to me, syntactically. But anyway, I was specifically asking about:



Let's say your God exists. Why obey?

Why not? Because he says so. It's written in the Bible.

How is my argument any different substantively than the other secular arguments presented out here? "Right is just right, wrong is wrong, my gut says so and I listen to my digestive system" or "because the women in my life will make my life hell if I don't obey".

My overall point is that organized Religion addresses real questions that real people have had for a very long time and still have. It is collection of books that documents these questions at some points very well and was indispensable for large tracts of modern human history. It is worthy of at the very least the same level of studious dissection and reverence as the classics. It forms the under-girding of most of the literature, art, music, politics of the past 2,000 years. And some would prefer that you do a talk about how stupid it is. I think that is foolish.

[Montmorency]

Sure. But then again: why?

[Kadagar_AV]

Because I believe that God created the universe and has a plan for us all. You may think that you have the world all figured out, but then women give birth to babies, dogs are just walking, stinking eating/pooping machines. Nothing in life makes sense by our rigid "logical" standards anyway, so why should I understand the overall purpose of everything? God says do this, I do this. God says do that, I do that. I try to use reason to the best of my ability.

Again, do you use reason or do you hear gods voice?

If you hear God, I am worried about you man.
If you don't, well, I would still be worried about you.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Again, do you use reason or do you hear gods voice?

I try to do both!

[Kadagar_AV]

I've just given up the idea that I'm some perfect logically reasoning machine or that I'll ever be. Many people are brighter than I and are even more lost in the woods.

I missed this first go around, GAH, stop editing.

Anyway, I agree with your view of other people being smarter than me, and that I should listen to them.

However, contrary to you I look to the best minds of today, who in return stand on the shoulders of the best minds who went before them.

You seem to take advice from people lost in a desert some 2000 years ago.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I missed this first go around, GAH, stop editing.

Anyway, I agree with your view of other people being smarter than me, and that I should listen to them.

However, contrary to you I look to the best minds of today, who in return stand on the shoulders of the best minds who went before them.

You seem to take advice from people lost in a desert some 2000 years ago.

I take advice from everyone and keep what I find to be valuable. Some great ideas i get from incredibly intelligent people, some I get from terribly lost people. A homeless alcoholic once came into my insurance office and told me about dunkin donuts new tuna fish bagel sandwich. I immediately became nauseous at the thought of it. I later went to Dunkin Donuts and ordered one for novelty's sake. I must have ordered 30 since, those things are delicious and must be the best thing a bum eats all day. I see value in the cumulative experience of mankind. I write off the stuff that doesn't resonate. Faith resonates with me as does the wisdom of the ancients and not so ancient. I value the Bible.

[Kadagar_AV]

I... I am lost for words.

I really have no idea how to debate with you.

Nutritious advice from a homeless alcoholic and moral advice from an age where slavery was common practice.

I guess you have it all set then.


Rhy, Philips... Would you guys mind if I elect this guy Captain of team Christianity on these boards?

[Tuuvi]

No. That is wrong. You are just pulling that out as a synonym when really that is just a non-sequitor. There is a universal right and wrong. It's infallible. Ok. That in no way means it's applicable to flawed beings. What you are saying is just taken from an abuse of the word infallible and instead of just claiming that it is infallible in it's assignment of values you now have left reality to claim that these universal values are values that can be upheld at all given times. Obviously such values are not able to be upheld at all given times, even the most devout and studied Christian will "sin" or make moral errors at some point, which means that these values are not always applicable which means your premise falls apart.

Again human fallibility makes any infallible moral system, fallible. If the moral system cannot be upheld consistently, then it is not a perfect moral system.

The reasons you stated here are why Christians believe in a savior god who atoned for the sins of the world.


This is relevant to the discussion: Lawrence Kohlberg's stages of moral development

[Tuuvi]

I... I am lost for words.

I really have no idea how to debate with you.

Nutritious advice from a homeless alcoholic and moral advice from an age where slavery was common practice.

I guess you have it all set then.


Rhy, Philips... Would you guys mind if I elect this guy Captain of team Christianity on these boards?

You think that just because the ancients practiced slavery that their moral system as a whole is completely invalid? There's a logical fallacy in there somewhere...