Everybody seems to cite the bible as if it has some profound knowledge unobtainable by man, as if the stories are somehow real or good, but I just don't see it. All I see is god making a product with what he could only consider to be a design flaw, a mind and a will of its own, and then perpetually compounds his mistake by punishing them for being precisely the way he made them. Adam and Eve doesn't blindly obey his commands, better banish them and curse them with pain and death. The people of Sodom and Gomorrah aren't obeying his commands, better kill all of them but Lot's family, whoops better fuck up the wife because she disobeyed and looked back at the life she had. People stop listening again, we'll kill all of them, except Noah because he begs really good. Crap, now their building a tower, better scatter them and confuse their language so they don't build any tall buildings again. So on and so forth, over and over, it is a laundry list of inevitable failures, all because he built a product he didn't really want, if he wanted blind unthinking obedience he never should have bothered to give us a mind. I mean, what the hell, why the hell would it punish its supposed creation for being EXACTLY what he created it to be?
It's nonsense, it has to be, because no omniscient being could possibly be THAT ignorant or incompetent. In my WILDEST fever dream I couldn't have dreamt up a less consistent deity, it doesn't even try. Failure, after failure, after failure, after failure, and the best he can come up with is a human sacrifice, of himself to himself, to destroy a law he created in the first place. And the mother of a fuck of it is, if you don't blindly accept this sacrifice that was supposedly made on your behalf, you will be tortured forever. It simply has to be the most masochistic, servile, dogmatic belief systems in existence. If you had never heard it before, and someone attempted to explain it to you, you would most likely think them unbalanced or worse.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
HI Travis
Although I am not a christian, I feel obliged to answer your post, because some of your comments are pointed at my beliefs as well. It's not that God designed a product to function in a particular way and came up with a poor design which failed. God did not design humans to be good or bad... he designed humans to be able to think on his own and make decisions. The fact that you see so many different ideas and practices (in all walks of life) only points to the success of this design.
But then why does God punish those who disobey Him? This is because man, despite his ability to reason and think, indulges in wrong deeds knowingly. Therefore, the design is to test man. Those who pass the test are saved, those who fail get punished.
However, let me turn this question around to you. If man is just a product of evolution... then how can you punish a person for a crime he commits? You just have to blame the genes that evolved merely by chance over which the individual had no control... which ultimately fashioned him into the person that he is. If someone murders... he is only doing what he has evolved to do.... why punish him?
Would you say a lion is evil because it is killing other animals? It is merely doing what is in its nature to do.
Simple, because your behavior is more than just a function of your genes. Don't believe it? Think about identical twins: their genes are identical but their behavior is not.
Nyarlothotep
Identical twins do not have identical genes. Check this out http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/identical-twins-genes-are-not-...
they start off identical
How about these two: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K57IcN9DWXo
From a theists perspective I'm curious, how can these girls marry, have sex and not have some type of lust/sin problem when they have sexual relations with their husband(s)?
"Although I am not a christian, I feel obliged to answer your post, because some of your comments are pointed at my beliefs as well. It's not that God designed a product to function in a particular way and came up with a poor design which failed. God did not design humans to be good or bad... he designed humans to be able to think on his own and make decisions. The fact that you see so many different ideas and practices (in all walks of life) only points to the success of this design."
I already stated that we weren't made to blindly obey the will or dictates of a god, you did not need to restate what I already said, you need to explain why god would find fault with us for not blindly obeying his will and dictates.
"But then why does God punish those who disobey Him? This is because man, despite his ability to reason and think, indulges in wrong deeds knowingly. Therefore, the design is to test man. Those who pass the test are saved, those who fail get punished."
Not all man does wrong things knowingly, and the argument isn't so much about people doing terrible things, but people disobeying god. Not all of gods commands are good and noble in all situations, morality is situational, intent and circumstance make much difference in distinguishing the immoral from the good. God, however, does not seem to consider any of this, and simply punishes us for disobeying regardless of intent or circumstance. He doesn't appear to want a man who reaches moral judgements on his own, without gods input, because he does not appear to care if the action is moral; he only cares about the act of disobedience.
"However, let me turn this question around to you. If man is just a product of evolution... then how can you punish a person for a crime he commits?"
Yep. If evolution is true it does not necessarily obviate free will, as free will can be considered to be an emergent property of consciousness, so people would still be responsible for their choices.
"You just have to blame the genes that evolved merely by chance over which the individual had no control... which ultimately fashioned him into the person that he is."
Genes don't determine behavior in such a fashion, they determine what we are, not who we are.
"If someone murders... he is only doing what he has evolved to do.... why punish him?"
To punish him for doing something unacceptable and protect the rest of society from the risk he represents.
"Would you say a lion is evil because it is killing other animals? It is merely doing what is in its nature to do."
Lions aren't very conscious, so have very limited if any will and moral agency, lions aren't so much immoral as they are amoral.
“… you need to explain why god would find fault with us for not blindly obeying his will and dictates.”
From an Islamic point of view, this is not wholly true… there is no blind following… there is a certain logic and reasoning to your belief and practices. Let me explain how.
If someone were to come and tell you that you need to kiss the ground 5 times a day because God said so… a muslim is not supposed to follow it. Rather, he is supposed to investigate if this command is indeed from God. If you are convinced that it is from God, then you have to do it, whether it makes sense to you or not… because we agree that God’s wisdom is much greater than ours.
If you want to know what that logic and reasoning is… that’s a different topic… we can discuss it if you want.
“Not all man does wrong things knowingly, and the argument isn't so much about people doing terrible things, but people disobeying god. Not all of gods commands are good and noble in all situations, morality is situational, intent and circumstance….”
In Islam, if you do a wrong without knowing that it is wrong, you are not guilty of sin. Regarding your points on morality and so on… I think I can answer that only if you give me examples, especially because you began by attacking Christian faith, which I don’t belong to. So may be you have some Christian values in mind while you are saying these things. Bring examples of unsuitable commands in Islam… then I shall present my defence.
“Yep. If evolution is true it does not necessarily obviate free will, as free will can be considered to be an emergent property of consciousness, so people would still be responsible for their choices.”
I believe in freewill because God says so. But how can you make that assertion, because science is very uncertain on this topic. Check this site http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will It is ridiculous to punish people for crimes they may not be responsible for based on such a weak and uncertain understanding of freewill.
“Genes don't determine behavior in such a fashion, they determine what we are, not who we are.”
Once again these are mere assertions on a subject that is only beginning to be unraveled… there is a still a long way for us to go in genomics. Watch out… probably decades later you may have to eat your words… and perhaps even apologize to all the criminals who are being punished now…
“To punish him for doing something unacceptable and protect the rest of society from the risk he represents.”
On what basis do you decide what is acceptable and unacceptable… (I think this will take us once again to the topic of morality and its foundations… nevertheless, it’s a question worth asking here). Moreover, consider for the sake of argument that tomorrow science proves that there is no such thing as freewill… would you still insist on punishing the criminals to protect the society?
“Lions aren't very conscious, so have very limited if any will and moral agency, lions aren't so much immoral as they are amoral.”
Once again… these are mere assertions… look at the words you used “lions aren’t very conscious…” where you seem to be attributing a small amount of conscientiousness to lions… not to the level of humans perhaps… therefore, does it warrant a small amount of punishment? What are you talking?
"From an Islamic point of view, this is not wholly true… there is no blind following… there is a certain logic and reasoning to your belief and practices. Let me explain how.
If someone were to come and tell you that you need to kiss the ground 5 times a day because God said so… a muslim is not supposed to follow it. Rather, he is supposed to investigate if this command is indeed from God. If you are convinced that it is from God, then you have to do it, whether it makes sense to you or not… because we agree that God’s wisdom is much greater than ours.
If you want to know what that logic and reasoning is… that’s a different topic… we can discuss it if you want."
That is exactly blindly following the will and dictates of a god. While you may try to make sure that it actually came from a god, once you are convinced that it came from the right god, you will follow it whether it makes any logical or moral sense. So god tells you to face Mecca and kiss the ground five times a day, that doesn't justify the behavior, only a valid logical reason could do that. The same with any moral dictates of said god, things are moral independent of whether or not a god said it, and we shouldn't blindly believe god just because he is "smarter" or "stronger" than us. There are likely MANY people both stronger and smarter than us, I am sure we could argue that point but I think you would eventually agree, but if those people told you to do something that went against your logical or moral reason you would be unlikely to obey them without better justification than the simple fact that someone said it.
Doing something that goes against your conscience, merely because it was commanded, doesn't make someone moral. It makes someone amoral, because they have sacrificed their ability to determine morality on the altar of blind obedience. Someone who promotes such an idea isn't promoting a moral system, but an amoral one, where our moral compass is completely irrelevant.
"In Islam, if you do a wrong without knowing that it is wrong, you are not guilty of sin."
In that case, Adam and Eve couldn't have sinned, could they?
"Regarding your points on morality and so on… I think I can answer that only if you give me examples, especially because you began by attacking Christian faith, which I don’t belong to. So may be you have some Christian values in mind while you are saying these things. Bring examples of unsuitable commands in Islam… then I shall present my defence."
I must confess that I have given the Quran nothing but a very cursory examination, so I am not aware of its moral pronouncements, does it have 613 like the Jews, 10 like the Christians? If the number isn't so large, perhaps we could parse through them. Though I will tell you right now, there may be some basic ideas, but none of them are absolute and are relative to the situation.
"I believe in freewill because God says so."
Seriously? You only accept free will because god said so? Surely there has to be more to it than that, that isn't an application of our faculties and reason to the subject, it is suspension of using those faculties and reason to the subject because a god said so. It cannot ever be said that the suspension of reason is reasonable, as that is a statement at direct conflict with itself, making it moot and invalid.
"But how can you make that assertion, because science is very uncertain on this topic.
I can make that assertion because I DON"T blindly abandon reason simply because someone smarter said something, I examine it with my reason and faculties to determine if it makes sense to me, and I find that compatibility seems more reasonable position. It seems reasonable to me that a things will is dependent on it having a conscious mind, so the exercise free will requires conscious intent. It also seems reasonable to me that the MORE conscious a entity is, the more "will" or action based on intent it can produce, and the less consciousness it has; the less action based on goals and intent in respect to values it will produce.
"Check this site http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will It is ridiculous to punish people for crimes they may not be responsible for based on such a weak and uncertain understanding of freewill."
There aren't any "strong" understandings of free will or determinism. just synthetic philosophical propositions that may not actually map to reality, and no strong evidence in favor of either proposition. Besides, if determinism WERE true, we would be equally determined to react the way we do to people committing crimes in the first place, making the argument a circular regress that goes nowhere.
"Once again these are mere assertions on a subject that is only beginning to be unraveled… there is a still a long way for us to go in genomics. Watch out… probably decades later you may have to eat your words… and perhaps even apologize to all the criminals who are being punished now…"
Given familial history, I probably have the genes to develop heart disease and diabetes. I don't have them, yet anyway, and it would appear that my lifestyle choices have a greater impact on if I will develop these things than my genetic predisposition to doing so. Until a link can be established that behavior is NOT the same, and that our choices do not impact the results, absolutely nobody would ever be justified in saying so.
"On what basis do you decide what is acceptable and unacceptable… (I think this will take us once again to the topic of morality and its foundations… nevertheless, it’s a question worth asking here)."
What do I base do I determine what is acceptable and unacceptable? On a rational understanding that I live in a reality where my actions affect other people, on an understanding of how those actions affect other people because I am an empathetic and compassionate entity, and a determination not to harm others unreasonably. By being able to judge those actions against values we all share, and realizing that my right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins. Because if morality is about anything, it is about how we interact with each other, and how we value each other. The very fact that I can judge my well-being as important, means that I have to judge your well-being to be at least nearly as important, because I live in a society where we may very well need each other.
I need no god on high issuing proclamations about how I should behave, I would know how I need to behave without your god, making him utterly irrelevant to the conversation and morality. God is a parasite people stick on morality as if it adds something to it, it doesn't, it only pushes the question out a step and pretends to answer it without explaining anything.
"Moreover, consider for the sake of argument that tomorrow science proves that there is no such thing as freewill… would you still insist on punishing the criminals to protect the society?"
If the criminals were predetermined to commit those crimes, we are equally predetermined to react to those crimes the way we have, making the question a circular regression. It is moot and irrelevant, in that case, isn't it?
"Once again… these are mere assertions… look at the words you used “lions aren’t very conscious…” where you seem to be attributing a small amount of conscientiousness to lions… not to the level of humans perhaps… therefore, does it warrant a small amount of punishment? What are you talking?"
I said "if any", I am not sure if lions are capable of understanding "wrong", meaning I am not sure if any punishment is warranted. Besides, do we not punish a lion that kills a man? They are normally killed(capital punishment) for doing such a thing, aren't they? So, I suppose you could say they are punished if you wish, though it is more an act of protection than one of punishment.
TRAVIS
“That is exactly blindly following the will and dictates of a god. While you may try to make sure that it actually came from a god, once you are convinced that it came from the right god, you will follow it whether it makes any logical or moral sense.”
Why I don’t see it as blind following is because I follow it only after making sure that it is coming from one such source that is infinitely wiser than me. This I think is logical. Why do you follow the instructions of a doctor even when you don’t understand it fully? Because you trust his knowledge.
Or take for instance a child. It may not understand why we ask it to do the things that we say? Yet, we force the child to obey… and we know it’s for the good… while the child may not understand. God’s wisdom is infinite… we are less than a child in front of Him… therefore, obedience to Him is logical.
“Doing something that goes against your conscience, merely because it was commanded, doesn't make someone moral. It makes someone amoral, because they have sacrificed their ability to determine morality on the altar of blind obedience. Someone who promotes such an idea isn't promoting a moral system, but an amoral one, where our moral compass is completely irrelevant.”
You have used words like conscious and moral… these according to me are meaningless if you don’t a higher authority to define them for you. If you try to explain to me what your moral paradigm is… I can prove my point to you. A entire thread running into several pages was in fact dedicated to this topic… remember you also contributed with your thoughts about evolution…. Read that thread and you will appreciate how slippery the atheist paradigm of morality is.
“In that case, Adam and Eve couldn't have sinned, could they?”
In Islam… Adam and Eve were fully aware that they were committing a sin. It’s not that they were not aware of the law that prohibited them from eating it.
“I must confess that I have given the Quran nothing but a very cursory examination, so I am not aware of its moral pronouncements, does it have 613 like the Jews, 10 like the Christians? If the number isn't so large, perhaps we could parse through them. Though I will tell you right now, there may be some basic ideas, but none of them are absolute and are relative to the situation.”
Well, Islam has some things common to those laws… and differs from them in many respects. But until you can show me by example how the commandments in islam are wrong… I can only make blanket claims that it’s not so.
“Seriously? You only accept free will because god said so? Surely there has to be more to it than that, that isn't an application of our faculties and reason to the subject, it is suspension of using those faculties and reason to the subject because a god said so. It cannot ever be said that the suspension of reason is reasonable, as that is a statement at direct conflict with itself, making it moot and invalid.”
That’s why I showed to you the position of science on the subject of freewill. There is really no way you can prove that man has freewill… however, in my case… as I believe in God, based on my set of logical reasoning… and God says He created us with freewill… I believe in it.
“I can make that assertion because I DON"T blindly abandon reason simply because someone smarter said something, I examine it with my reason and faculties to determine if it makes sense to me, and I find that compatibility seems more reasonable position.”
Once you agree that someone is smarter than you… you are testifying that the person is more capable of reasoning and understanding than you… in that case… the most logical thing for you to do would be to accept what he says… otherwise I would say you are being foolhardy.
The reason you are trying to determine things in spite of being told otherwise by someone else… is because you are not sure he is smarter than you… and you are absolutely right in the case of humans… we should never take anyone’s word for final… we have to investigate further… but if we know for sure that the other person is way smarter than us… and that he means well… the most logical thing to do would be to obey him.
Isn’t that the way you do things in your everyday life? Why are we quoting scientists and other experts in our posts… even though we have not conducted any experiments on our own… because we trust those who are more knowledgeable than us in those fields.
“It seems reasonable to me that a things will is dependent on it having a conscious mind, so the exercise free will requires conscious intent. It also seems reasonable to me that the MORE conscious a entity is, the more "will" or action based on intent it can produce, and the less consciousness it has; the less action based on goals and intent in respect to values it will produce.”
What is consciousness? It is an axiomatic concept… something we have to simply assume that it exists… to begin our investigation into anything. It can never be proven through any empirical process. Therefore by using terms like ‘consciousness’ ‘will’ etc you are treading into the realm of belief… in fact some Eastern philosophies call consciousness “God.”
“Besides, if determinism WERE true, we would be equally determined to react the way we do to people committing crimes in the first place, making the argument a circular regress that goes nowhere.”
You are right. But to say that you believe in freewill just to escape this ‘circular regress’ soup is irrational. You might as well believe in God and escape facing tough questions.
“Until a link can be established that behavior is NOT the same, and that our choices do not impact the results, absolutely nobody would ever be justified in saying so.”
So will you not react to crime or support punishing criminals until the link is established??? What is your justification for letting the current status quo be… while science can throw up any surprise tomorrow?
“What do I base do I determine what is acceptable and unacceptable? On a rational understanding that I live in a reality where my actions affect other people, on an understanding of how those actions affect other people because I am an empathetic and compassionate entity, and a determination not to harm others unreasonably.”
How do you define rational understanding… science??? I just showed to you how it keeps changing… how can you ever be certain that your rational understanding is correct… it could change tomorrow… what do you mean by “not harming others unreasonably”… at one point US thought atom-bombing Japs was not unreasonable. Your standards are so relative, that you can justify any crime if you so please.
“I need no god on high issuing proclamations about how I should behave, I would know how I need to behave without your god, making him utterly irrelevant to the conversation and morality.”
I feel the need for God for two reasons. Firstly, to have a clear sense of right and wrong… different from the muddled version of “rational understanding” that fluid and relativistic as I demonstrated above. Secondly to have a strong motivation to do good and avoid bad. I seriously don’t understand why an atheist should act on what he understands to be good. Why should you not watch porn? Why should you not lie if that can help you benefit? Why should you not kill like all those drug tycoons who have built an empire on crime?
If the criminals were predetermined to commit those crimes, we are equally predetermined to react to those crimes the way we have, making the question a circular regression. It is moot and irrelevant, in that case, isn't it?
Agreed. But it brings us back to the assertion of freewill. This argument only shows the need for freewill… and you seem to be believing in it only for ideological convenience, and not based on any scientific evidence… if anything, science only seems to be nodding in the opposite direction.
“I said "if any", I am not sure if lions are capable of understanding "wrong", meaning I am not sure if any punishment is warranted. Besides, do we not punish a lion that kills a man? They are normally killed (capital punishment) for doing such a thing, aren't they? So, I suppose you could say they are punished if you wish, though it is more an act of protection than one of punishment.”
You are not sure, you said. That’s precisely my point. How can you make moral assertions standing on such shifting sands? And secondly, killing lions for our protection is not as a capital punishment… it’s merely because we humans have assumed that man has a greater right to live than animals. In the same way that we slaughter animals for food… even though they are innocent of any crime. Incidentally, I would also like to ask you… on what basis do you justify the killing of animals? Who told you, it is okay to do so? If food justifies killing of animals, what about cannibalism?
"Why I don’t see it as blind following is because I follow it only after making sure that it is coming from one such source that is infinitely wiser than me."
If, and it is a big if, there were a being infinitely smarter than us; we still wouldn't be justified in blindly obeying its dictates if they went against our reason or morality. That is an act of abandoning such faculties, not using them, which is what makes it blind.
"This I think is logical."
It is the opposite, it is the subjugation of our faculty of reason(including logic) to the will or dictates of another being, that would be precisely alogical. You are no longer exercising the capacity for logic, but accepting commands regardless of their coherence, just because they come from some imagined god.
"Why do you follow the instructions of a doctor even when you don’t understand it fully? Because you trust his knowledge."
I generally wouldn't follow their instructions if they were contradictory to what I do understand, I would make them explain themselves until I did understand it, and if it made no rational sense I would get another opinion on the matter until I found one that could explain it properly.
"Or take for instance a child. It may not understand why we ask it to do the things that we say?"
I have always explained it properly, so my son understands why I ask him to do things.
"Yet, we force the child to obey… and we know it’s for the good… while the child may not understand."
Ha ha, hahahahaha, if you think you can simply force a child to obey; you obviously have NEVER had one. You DO have to explain yourself often, often repeatedly until they understand it, before they "obey". You have a rather strange idea concerning parenting, I think I would rather not be your child.
"God’s wisdom is infinite… we are less than a child in front of Him… therefore, obedience to Him is logical."
No. An argument from authority is just what it is. This would be little different that the Nazis following the orders of their Fuhrer. Blind obedience to anything, no matter the authority, is simply abandoning your cognitive abilities. The very moment you assert a thing is right, or good, or moral, or wise simply because some authority said it; you have left all rational conversation behind.
"You have used words like conscious and moral… these according to me are meaningless if you don’t a higher authority to define them for you."
Which is simply stupid to me. If your moral judgement is so flawed or corrupt that you can't make proper moral judgements without god, how in the hell can you assess god as moral with that same flawed and corrupt judgement. It is senseless, if your only basis for what is moral is god, than you literally have abandoned the concept, because obedience takes precedence to actual morality.
"If you try to explain to me what your moral paradigm is… I can prove my point to you. A entire thread running into several pages was in fact dedicated to this topic… remember you also contributed with your thoughts about evolution…. Read that thread and you will appreciate how slippery the atheist paradigm of morality is."
As I said before:
On a rational understanding that I live in a reality where my actions affect other people, on an understanding of how those actions affect other people because I am an empathetic and compassionate entity, and a determination not to harm others unreasonably.
"In Islam… Adam and Eve were fully aware that they were committing a sin. It’s not that they were not aware of the law that prohibited them from eating it."
Is there a tree that they eat from? Is it the tree of knowledge? If it was, how in the hell can you say that they knew they were doing wrong? While they may have been told it was wrong, never did they understand what wrong actually was before eating the fruit, or how their actions were wrong. Basically, your god left a jar of razorblades in a room with a toddler, told that toddler not to touch them, and simply left. If any of us did that, the child wouldn't be arrested, we would; because we all know who would be at fault. Your god was at fault.
"Well, Islam has some things common to those laws… and differs from them in many respects. But until you can show me by example how the commandments in islam are wrong… I can only make blanket claims that it’s not so."
If it has things in common with those laws, lets test it out. Was there any slavery? Was there any genocide? How about the treatment of homosexuals and apostates? That could be a start.
"That’s why I showed to you the position of science on the subject of freewill."
No, there are multiple theories concerning the subject, and you COMPLETELY ignored compatablism.
"There is really no way you can prove that man has freewill… however, in my case… as I believe in God, based on my set of logical reasoning… and God says He created us with freewill… I believe in it."
We also have no way to falsify free will either, or determinism for that matter, they are philosophical positions.
"Once you agree that someone is smarter than you… you are testifying that the person is more capable of reasoning and understanding than you… in that case… the most logical thing for you to do would be to accept what he says… otherwise I would say you are being foolhardy."
If you just blindly accept what someone that is smarter than you says, that doesn't guarantee that they are right, that is an act of obedience and not reason. If you don't plan on applying your cognitive faculties, then you might as well get a lobotomy, for all the good your brain is doing you. Hitler wasn't an idiot, he was smarter than a lot of his subordinates, does that mean that his subordinates were justified in following his orders? See the problem yet? If you don't, then you never will, because you are proposing an amoral system.
"The reason you are trying to determine things in spite of being told otherwise by someone else… is because you are not sure he is smarter than you… and you are absolutely right in the case of humans… we should never take anyone’s word for final… we have to investigate further… but if we know for sure that the other person is way smarter than us… and that he means well… the most logical thing to do would be to obey him."
Bullshit, frankly, I am surprised you have managed to keep this lame argumentation up this long. It simply doesn't matter what it is you are positing as an authority, there are no guarantees, so you must investigate if what it says is actually correct before you implement it. Otherwise, you are merely a puppet.
"Isn’t that the way you do things in your everyday life?"
"Why are we quoting scientists and other experts in our posts… even though we have not conducted any experiments on our own… because we trust those who are more knowledgeable than us in those fields."
I generally don't quote scientists, I cite studies with details and results, because we all know authority isn't a certain pathway to truth.
"What is consciousness? It is an axiomatic concept… something we have to simply assume that it exists… to begin our investigation into anything. It can never be proven through any empirical process. Therefore by using terms like ‘consciousness’ ‘will’ etc you are treading into the realm of belief… in fact some Eastern philosophies call consciousness “God.”"
Really? Have you never looked in a dictionary? Are you really going to start with semantic masturbation? Most everyone here understood exactly what I meant, and I am willing to bet you did to, but now you want to play vocular hide-and-seek.
"You are right. But to say that you believe in freewill just to escape this ‘circular regress’ soup is irrational."
I gave more reasons, you just didn't like them.
"You might as well believe in God and escape facing tough questions."
This has to be the ultimate statement of faith. Don't know something? Forget it, believe in god, ignore the tough questions. If you honestly DON'T see what is wrong with that, when it is just about everything wrong in the world, then you have frankly stopped thinking altogether.
"So will you not react to crime or support punishing criminals until the link is established??? What is your justification for letting the current status quo be… while science can throw up any surprise tomorrow?"
Because we are justified in assuming choice, we experience it, while the alternative actually NEEDS justification before I would be reasonable to consider it.
"How do you define rational understanding… science???"
Reason, actually, and science is a part of reason.
"I just showed to you how it keeps changing… how can you ever be certain that your rational understanding is correct… it could change tomorrow…"
It doesn't change, our understanding of it does. There is an objective reality, one independent of our perception of it, thanks to that there are certain truths about things regardless of whether we know it or not. One of those things is morality, another is health, and there are things we discover about both. We eventually realized that bloodletting wasn't healthy for us, it never was, we just thought it was at one time. We have also realized that slavery isn't moral of us, it never was, we just thought it was at one time. There are objective truths about our reality, and they actually can form the basis for a good understanding of things, we just have to apprehend them first. We can't even be certain that we know everything about health, it may change in the future as we learn more about it, that doesn't mean that health is relative; only our understanding of it. To treat information the way you do, to treat discovery and change as if it is a sign of weakness, is to not understand what strength is. An evolving system may not be perfect, but neither is any religious one that I am aware of, and at least an evolving one does not stagnate. It can grow, it can get better, it can adapt to new ideas and technologies. Yours doesn't.
"what do you mean by “not harming others unreasonably”… at one point US thought atom-bombing Japs was not unreasonable."
Indeed, we quickly learned how wrong we were, and we adapted. If it were a religious system, no matter how wrong it was, we would be stuck with it or have to try and rationalize it away.
"Your standards are so relative, that you can justify any crime if you so please."
Ironic, in my experience gods are generally WORSE than human beings when it comes to crimes, how relative their morality must be.
"I feel the need for God for two reasons. Firstly, to have a clear sense of right and wrong… different from the muddled version of “rational understanding” that fluid and relativistic as I demonstrated above."
The only thing you demonstrated is that your sense of right and wrong is a stagnant pool, no matter what comes, it will remain no matter how little it maps to reality.
"Secondly to have a strong motivation to do good and avoid bad."
So do we, our rewards and punishments are just here and now, instead of in some nebulous afterlife.
"I seriously don’t understand why an atheist should act on what he understands to be good."
Because we are good. We tend to commit less crime across the board, and it can be demonstrated with studies.
"Why should you not watch porn?"
I value my wife enough that I don't want to. If I was single though, why shouldn't I?
"Why should you not lie if that can help you benefit?"
I don't, but I would lie to protect others. Wouldn't you?
"Why should you not kill like all those drug tycoons who have built an empire on crime?"
I wouldn't kill for an empire or drugs, but to protect someone I love, I would kill. Wouldn't you?
So far you have only demonstrated that morality ISN'T static, which is exactly what I said. If you had an absolute morality, it would be static, and the above would remain evil regardless of circumstance.
"You are not sure, you said. That’s precisely my point."
Indeed, I am not sure how much moral agency a lion has, I am not a lion and can't seem to communicate with one no matter how hard I try. Are you saying that you do?
"How can you make moral assertions standing on such shifting sands?"
About lions? Well, I don't automatically attribute to malice that which is better explained by ignorance. Lions don't appear to have the same moral sense as a chimpanzee, a snail, or a human. It would seem that moral sense is somewhat dependent on brain development.
"And secondly, killing lions for our protection is not as a capital punishment… it’s merely because we humans have assumed that man has a greater right to live than animals."
I wonder how valuing our species over others would confer a benefit, hmmm... Oh yeah, survival...
"In the same way that we slaughter animals for food… even though they are innocent of any crime."
We also slaughter plants for food, but I don't see anyone crying a river of tears over that, they must really love their mashed potatoes.
"Incidentally, I would also like to ask you… on what basis do you justify the killing of animals?"
Survival. If I need food, or it is a threat, I will kill something to survive.
"Who told you, it is okay to do so?"
I don't need someone to tell me if something is okay, I am capable of working some things out on my own.
"If food justifies killing of animals, what about cannibalism?"
In extreme case people have justified cannibalism, it is generally unhealthy, and murdering someone is bad for us as a species. However, there has been cases where people resorted to eating the dead(they didn't kill them), like in plane crashes, and they aren't convicted.
- "I don’t see it as blind following is because I follow it only after making sure that it is coming from one such source that is infinitely wiser than me."
- "but if we know for sure that the other person is way smarter than us… and that he means well."
How do you make sure???
How do you make sure of the source? What is that source?
How do you make sure that source is infinitely wiser?
How do you make sure that he means well?
Give a sensible reason, that does not include circular reasoning.
(We must believe in God, because it says so in the scriptures that was written by our omniscient God. He is real and he is omniscient, because it says so in the scriptures.)
- "words like conscious and moral… these according to me are meaningless if you don’t a higher authority to define them for you."
Why? By what standards do you make any assertions at all if you always need a higher authority? How then did you make the assertions that you always need a higher authority?
If you are driving a car and someone walks out infront of the car, do you NOT step on the brakes because you haven't been told to?
- "Once you agree that someone is smarter than you... the most logical thing for you to do would be to accept what he says… otherwise I would say you are being foolhardy."
This is, excuse my languish, completely idiotic.
Being smart does not automatically make what that person says right.
Being smart does not automatically make someone moral.
Being smart does not automatically give authority over others.
If someone is smarter, but has opinions that are immoral or insane, there is obvious reasons to NOT accept what he says. That person could just as well be using and manipulating others for strictly selfish motives.
This does not mean that there is no reason to listen to smart people.
- "Why are we quoting scientists and other experts... because we trust those who are more knowledgeable than us in those fields."
Because when scientists publish information, it gets scrutinized by many others. If the scientist's information was wrong, immoral or insane it would be discovered and get critique and probably get ridiculed openly.
(And having knowledge is not the same thing as being smart.)
If the worlds smartest scientist starts instructing everyone to worship him and give him offerings.
I don't think he would get any followers at all.
Because we all have the ability make judgement calls from the information we take in. And we would not see a reason to follow him.
And not even in this case, with a physical person, would it be possible to make sure that he is infinitely wiser and means well.
Now if he had written everything about worshiping him in a book and the scientist himself was nowhere to be found, but the book states that he is all around us forever and he will bring us to a paradise when we die; would you consider that good enough reason to devout your life to him?
I certainly would not.
The creation story and some parts of the old testaments are really unbelievable and nonsense. They only described god as a cruel one. The only part of the old testament that I like is the wisdom of Solomon which stated that nothings really matters.
TRAVIS
“If, and it is a big if, there were a being infinitely smarter than us; we still wouldn't be justified in blindly obeying its dictates if they went against our reason or morality. That is an act of abandoning such faculties, not using them, which is what makes it blind.”
There are two things to note here. Firstly it is ascertaining the fact whether someone or some entity is infinitely smarter (meaning wise and knowledgeable). The second part is giving obedience to that entity. We are skipping the first part in this part of the debate… therefore, we begin from the second assumption that a certain entity is infinitely smarter than us… (and as I had mentioned in my previous post, we also assume that we know that this entity means well for us… we are not going to discuss how just now)…
If you accept this premise… then when you get a message from this infinitely wise and good entity… I would say you are foolhardy not to accept it… However, in the examples we discussed of the doctor and so on… the issue is we can never ever be certain of their infallibility… and that’s why blind obedience is unadvisable there. To sum up… if the wisdom and good intention of the said entity are beyond doubt… then blind obedience is the best thing to do.
But then you have raised an important point. Are we abandoning our faculties through this blind obedience? Not at all. Because to ascertain whether the message is indeed coming from one such entity… we have got a lot of work for our faculties.
Were we not discussing evolution and about nylonase and all that stuff… why am I so deeply engaging in these conversations… it is part of the process of verifying the veracity of the message I follow. So, we are not suspending our faculties by believing in God… in fact belief in God is the result of the application of those faculties (of course, I am not talking on behalf of all theists here).
“I generally wouldn't follow their instructions if they were contradictory to what I do understand, I would make them explain themselves until I did understand it, and if it made no rational sense I would get another opinion on the matter until I found one that could explain it properly.”
This is easier said than done. If you have cancer and the doctor advises chemotherapy… and if you said that you will decide whether to go for it or not after fully understanding the procedure and its effects on your cells and so on… this would be foolhardiness yet again.
What you can do at best is take more expert opinions… and then accept one of their advices. Here, yes, you are applying your reasoning… but that would NOT be directly on the subject in question… it would be to the extent of which of the doctors sounds more reliable, depending on his experience and degrees and so on… that would be a sort of lateral application of reason… but to say that you would understand the disease and the treatment fully before going for it, would be insane. This is exactly, how I believe in god… through lateral application of logic. As our subject is not dealing with that part of it… I am not going to explain how.
“I have always explained it properly, so my son understands why I ask him to do things.”
Once again… easier said than done. If your child switches TV channels and happens upon a film with explicit content… if you are a good parent, I think, you would ask him to change the channel. And if your child asks, why… would you actually lecture him on sex and why children must avoid it? Of course not… you would give some short-cut explanation, which doesn’t give the full picture, right? That’s what I mean.
"Ha ha, hahahahaha, if you think you can simply force a child to obey”
What I meant by force… is that at times children are adamant for chocolate… or don’t want to go to school… and they may not want to appreciate the reasons we give them… and then you would have to be curt and make them obey…
“No. An argument from authority is just what it is. This would be little different that the Nazis following the orders of their Fuhrer.”
You are right… you should NEVER give blind obedience to another human being… because there is no man who is all knowing… man is fallible… so when a man tells you something, you better put it to test and think about it before accepting it. I agree with you.
But the question is about a source whose wisdom and good intentions you have no doubts about!!! How can you be certain of God’s wisdom and good intentions? That’s another question… and if you are interested we can delve into that topic as well. But not in this thread... as it’s getting too long as it is.
“Which is simply stupid to me. If your moral judgement is so flawed or corrupt that you can't make proper moral judgements without god, how in the hell can you assess god as moral with that same flawed and corrupt judgement. It is senseless, if your only basis for what is moral is god, than you literally have abandoned the concept, because obedience takes precedence to actual morality.”
There is a small correction here. I am not paying blind obedience to God because I have judged his concept of morality. Rather it works the other way round. When I try to use my faculties to make moral decisions… I find that it gets too relativistic (as I explained in earlier posts)… and it changes with time…there is really no certain way to know what is moral. Yesterday I thought homosexuality was bad… and today it has changed, and is alright… but tomorrow it could change… which can once again change… and so on. Therefore, it puts me in a moral flux… endless uncertainty.
And so I turn to a source which I know has infinite knowledge… which knows everything about the past, present and future… and therefore, I accept, the moral precepts propounded by this entity.
So I exercise my faculties only to judge if this entity can be all knowing… once I can ascertain that… then I accept its moral teachings blindly.
"On a rational understanding that I live in a reality where my actions affect other people, on an understanding of how those actions affect other people because I am an empathetic and compassionate entity, and a determination not to harm others unreasonably.”
This is a subject of a separate debate. But let me try to tackle it here. How can you ever be certain of how your actions affect others people? It was initially thought that smoking was okay. Then studies showed that smoking is injurious. Further down the road, studies revealed that it also affects others (passive smoking). So, now you realize that all along you had been harming others? And there is really no way to tell what else will surface in future… get my point?
Here is another example. Alcohol. At an individual level, alcohol has some bad effects. Such as loss of sobriety, liver diseases and so on. But when studies were conducted on the macro effects of alcohol… we came to realize that it costs governments billions of dollars every year by way of medical expenses, loss of productivity, premature deaths leading to orphaned families, poverty… and so on. Add to it studies that show that 90% of crimes (in India) are committed under the influence of alcohol. It may not be too much to say that the world would be a better place without alcohol. From that standpoint, isn’t everybody purchasing alcohol actually helping to sustain this industry which is morally wrong?
These are just two examples… I can go on about the porn industry and how it’s affecting the society… while at an individual level it might just seem to be someone’s freedom to practice a trade and a customer’s freedom to exercise his choice.
What I am saying is that you can never ever fully gain an understanding of how you affect others… you will have to keep shifting your perspectives… which will only weaken your resolve to live by a moral standard… because at the back of your mind you always know that this could be wrong.
“Is there a tree that they eat from? Is it the tree of knowledge? If it was, how in the hell can you say that they knew they were doing wrong?”
In Islam… it’s not a tree of knowledge… Adam and Eve were already thinking, reasoning and understanding individuals… they were clear about the law… and broke it with impunity.
“If it has things in common with those laws, lets test it out. Was there any slavery? Was there any genocide? How about the treatment of homosexuals and apostates? That could be a start.”
Slavery was there. But before you jump on to it… it was vastly different from other forms practiced in other parts of the world. This might also warrant a separate debate… there was no genocide… homosexuality is a sin… but there is no worldly punishment prescribed for it… apostates have the freedom to do so… (DISCLAIMER: there may be some groups who hold different views… but any ruling in islam has validity only if evidence from the authentic sources are provided).
“No, there are multiple theories concerning the subject, and you COMPLETELY ignored compatablism.”
Yes… there are multiple theories… and these are all in their infancies… you can’t make any decisive decision based on these theories…
"We also have no way to falsify free will either, or determinism for that matter, they are philosophical positions.”
Absolutely… that is your situation, because your paradigm is reasoning and understanding. Whereas, for me I believe in freewill not based on empirical evidence but based on God’s word.
"If you just blindly accept what someone that is smarter than you says, that doesn't guarantee that they are right, that is an act of obedience and not reason.”
This is what I was trying to explain above. We agree on this point. That’s why I don’t take the word of any mortal as final.
"Bullshit, frankly, I am surprised you have managed to keep this lame argumentation up this long. It simply doesn't matter what it is you are positing as an authority, there are no guarantees, so you must investigate if what it says is actually correct before you implement it. Otherwise, you are merely a puppet.”
But for that you have to hear my reason as to why I have accept an entity as my authority. We have never entered that part of the debate. We are only trying to figure out that once we accept an entity as infinitely wise and good… does it make sense to pay him blind obedience or not. It does is what I am saying. But if you are arguing that nobody can be vested with such authority… that’s another debate involving the concept of God and so on.
"I generally don't quote scientists, I cite studies with details and results, because we all know authority isn't a certain pathway to truth.”
Take for example the pseudomonas experiment that you quoted in another thread. Did you conduct that experiment or did you just quote from the research papers? What makes you think that all that is in that paper has been truthfully recorded from real experiment… or what makes you think the scientists had not made any erroneous observations during that experiment…after all you were not there when the experiment was underway. So there is a certain belief that you have exercised. Yes, you may have your logical reasoning for that belief… but there is a blind spot to that belief. Here you are accepting the authority of the scientists on the subject.
"What is consciousness? It is an axiomatic concept… something we have to simply assume that it exists… to begin our investigation into anything. It can never be proven through any empirical process. Therefore by using terms like ‘consciousness’ ‘will’ etc you are treading into the realm of belief… in fact some Eastern philosophies call consciousness “God.”"
“Really? Have you never looked in a dictionary? Are you really going to start with semantic masturbation? Most everyone here understood exactly what I meant, and I am willing to bet you did to, but now you want to play vocular hide-and-seek.”
When I look up the dictionary I also find the word soul, do you believe in it. Do you want me to take dictionary as a proof for a debate involving epistemology? If you had any inkling of the raging debates that have and are taking place over consciousness… you would NOT have said this about consciousness… because there is really no way you can prove if it really exists… the only proof you can show is that you are conscious of consciousness… that’s like saying “ Red is red because it’s red.” That’s why thinkers like Ayn Rand said that consciousness is an axiomatic concept. One of the three basic fundamentals that you simply have to assume exists to proceed with any philosophical inquiry.
“This has to be the ultimate statement of faith. Don't know something? Forget it, believe in god, ignore the tough questions. If you honestly DON'T see what is wrong with that, when it is just about everything wrong in the world, then you have frankly stopped thinking altogether.”
I said “you might as well believe in God and avoid the tough questions” sarcastically… because that’s a charge that Atheists bring against theists… that our God is a God of gaps… it was not a statement of faith.
"How do you define rational understanding… science???"
“Reason, actually, and science is a part of reason.”
It’s so vague… I ask you to explain rational understanding and you throw an equally vague word, “reason.” Please don’t think I am being a pain… but I have to ask you, What is Reason? And science is a part of it? Haven’t I already showed to you how science can’t be relied on for moral judgments… because it changes with time?
"It doesn't change, our understanding of it does. There is an objective reality, one independent of our perception of it, thanks to that there are certain truths about things regardless of whether we know it or not.”
I think you have got it wrong. We are talking about moral issues here. We are not trying to figure out if shooting a man kills him or not. If you shoot a man, he will die. This is an objective truth. But the question we are asking is “is it right to kill a man”. There is no objectivity there. It will differ depending on how you look at it.
“To treat information the way you do, to treat discovery and change as if it is a sign of weakness, is to not understand what strength is.”
I agree it is a strength so far as objective reality goes… but where moral questions are involved it is indeed a weakness… how can you drop an atom bomb on a people… thinking that is a reasonable thing to do… and decades later turn around and say… “oh, I think there’s been a mistake… we are sorry.” Does this look like strength… or a cruel joke???
“An evolving system may not be perfect, but neither is any religious one that I am aware of, and at least an evolving one does not stagnate. It can grow, it can get better, it can adapt to new ideas and technologies. Yours doesn't.”
You made a generalization of faiths… with nothing pointedly about Islam… therefore, I don’t know how to respond to it. If you can be more specific… I can answer.
"The only thing you demonstrated is that your sense of right and wrong is a stagnant pool, no matter what comes, it will remain no matter how little it maps to reality.”
You can call it what you like… but the reality is you have a moral system which by your own admission is imperfect… it’s unstable… and the joke is you are judging my stagnant pool using your “fluctuating tide”… so today you might say the pool is wrong….but there’s every chance that you will come back tomorrow and say “it’s right”. There is no guarantee whatsoever.
“So do we, our rewards and punishments are just here and now, instead of in some nebulous afterlife.”
I really would like to see how imperialists like George Bush who have the blood of millions of innocents on their hands get punished in this world??? The luxurious life in his Texan ranch… is that his punishment?
“Because we are good. We tend to commit less crime across the board, and it can be demonstrated with studies.”
I would like to see those studies… but I can show you some as well by American sociological society that has some favorable things about believers.
“I value my wife enough that I don't want to. If I was single though, why shouldn't I?”
When I am asking these questions to you… I am not expecting an answer from your personal life… this is an ideological debate… you have to show me logically why if a married man, if interested in porn, shouldn’t indulge in it? I am not asking about singles because you don’t see anything wrong in it… may be you might hold to that position until the next study reveals that teenage porn addiction is snowballing into a huge social problem.
“I wouldn't kill for an empire or drugs, but to protect someone I love, I would kill. Wouldn't you?”
You miss my point again. If a drug tycoon thinks killing makes him rich and gives him a comfy life… why should he not continue doing it? What advice will you give him to make him stop?
“So far you have only demonstrated that morality ISN'T static, which is exactly what I said. If you had an absolute morality, it would be static, and the above would remain evil regardless of circumstance.”
What I have demonstrated is that YOUR morality ISN’T static… ask me the same questions… and I will show you how mine is static and stable.
“Indeed, I am not sure how much moral agency a lion has, I am not a lion and can't seem to communicate with one no matter how hard I try. Are you saying that you do?”
Yes, I do, from an ideological perspective. Lions do not have any moral agency… for that matter no animal has… which is why you don’t punish animals… for moral rectification… you punish them only to tame them… I haven’t heard of any court that tries an animal and issues a verdict.
“Lions don't appear to have the same moral sense as a chimpanzee, a snail, or a human. It would seem that moral sense is somewhat dependent on brain development.”
Therefore are you saying that some animals deserve small punishments??? We may kill an animal that attacks a human… that is only to save the man… but let’s say an animal killed a man, before it could be stopped… but then it gets captured and put in captivity… would any thinking man call for a death sentence for that animal for the crime of killing the man???
Ugh, our conversation is getting too long, I don't have and hour to respond to your entire post. I'm going to have to start limiting myself to one or two arguments a post, for the sake of brevity. Do you want to pick, or should I?
U r right...its getting too lengthy.
I think at the core of our discussion is the basis of morality....i would like to see your response to my criticisms of ur moral foundations...
"This is a subject of a separate debate. But let me try to tackle it here. How can you ever be certain of how your actions affect others people? It was initially thought that smoking was okay. Then studies showed that smoking is injurious. Further down the road, studies revealed that it also affects others (passive smoking). So, now you realize that all along you had been harming others? And there is really no way to tell what else will surface in future… get my point?
Here is another example. Alcohol. At an individual level, alcohol has some bad effects. Such as loss of sobriety, liver diseases and so on. But when studies were conducted on the macro effects of alcohol… we came to realize that it costs governments billions of dollars every year by way of medical expenses, loss of productivity, premature deaths leading to orphaned families, poverty… and so on. Add to it studies that show that 90% of crimes (in India) are committed under the influence of alcohol. It may not be too much to say that the world would be a better place without alcohol. From that standpoint, isn’t everybody purchasing alcohol actually helping to sustain this industry which is morally wrong?
These are just two examples… I can go on about the porn industry and how it’s affecting the society… while at an individual level it might just seem to be someone’s freedom to practice a trade and a customer’s freedom to exercise his choice.
What I am saying is that you can never ever fully gain an understanding of how you affect others… you will have to keep shifting your perspectives… which will only weaken your resolve to live by a moral standard… because at the back of your mind you always know that this could be wrong."
Is this an adequate place to start, or would you prefer to work backward from first principles?
Whatevrr u see fit
I prefer to work from first principles. So I suppose I will start from there, one point at a time, and hope we don't get hopelessly mired in semantics...
Is there an objective reality?
yes
Can we perceive this objective reality somewhat accurately?
Yes
Can we perceive that being murdered, raped, or robbed is not good for us as an individual?
We can...but everyone need NOT necessarily perceive good and bad the same way.
A person who commits suicide thinks that dying is better than living...but another person might think dying is bad.
"We can...but everyone need NOT necessarily perceive good and bad the same way."
People don't even perceive reality the same way, or god, so it all boils down to perception and not absolute fact anyway. Some people think they are god, some people think they are Napoleon, the only way we have of determining that these other perception are false is by consensus, is it not?
"A person who commits suicide thinks that dying is better than living...but another person might think dying is bad."
True, it is that perception that rules us, not the objective reality itself.
Now to the next point:
If we(the majority of humans) perceive that the things described above are bad for us, and we also perceive that other people exist, wouldn't it be normal of us to infer that said things are bad for these other people too?
"We can...but everyone need NOT necessarily perceive good and bad the same way."
People don't even perceive reality the same way, or god, so it all boils down to perception and not absolute fact anyway. Some people think they are god, some people think they are Napoleon, the only way we have of determining that these other perception are false is by consensus, is it not?
You are missing my point. Perceptions of objective reality could be different… but we can empirically prove which of those perceptions is right or wrong. But there is No way you can empirically prove whether something is morally right or wrong…to go back to the suicide example… you can empirically prove whether a man would die or not if he hanged himself from a rope… but is suicide good or bad… there is no way you can prove it…a man who values his honor above all things, and decides to die because his honor is at stake, is right in his perspective…for another person living is better than dying, and so suicide could be wrong in his perspective… there is no way you can prove either. Get my point. Morality is simply a matter of perspective… not objective reality.
“If we(the majority of humans) perceive that the things described above are bad for us, and we also perceive that other people exist, wouldn't it be normal of us to infer that said things are bad for these other people too?”
If you go by majority… at one point of time a majority of the world thought slavery was right… will that make it right? You are in fact taking your moral positions based on your subjective perceptions (NOT Objective) which is influenced by a variety of factors such as your culture, your schooling, the period your are living, the values you have been taught and so on… if you were born into an Africa tribe practicing cannibalism, you would be eating other humans with the coolness of eating animals… if you were born into a particular caste in India, you would see eating of animals as murder, and be as sensitive to it as you are to killing humans… all a matter of perception… no objectivity rules there.
Dangit, it is getting long again...
"You are missing my point. Perceptions of objective reality could be different… but we can empirically prove which of those perceptions is right or wrong."
Can we? Can we really, in every case? Short answer: No, we can't, not always. Besides, all knowledge is tentative and changes, as you yourself pointed out. As we learn, we grow, and open up new fields of study.
"But there is No way you can empirically prove whether something is morally right or wrong…"
Hell, I can't even prove you exist without relying on my perception.
"to go back to the suicide example… you can empirically prove whether a man would die or not if he hanged himself from a rope…"
People sometimes survive hanging.
"but is suicide good or bad…"
I would say that the situation and circumstances matter, they are variables, and must be accounted for to come to an accurate conclusion.
"there is no way you can prove it…a man who values his honor above all things, and decides to die because his honor is at stake, is right in his perspective…"
Depends, is he doing it to save himself embarassment, or to save his family/community? We need more data to determine if it was good or not.
"for another person living is better than dying, and so suicide could be wrong in his perspective…"
Living isn't always better than dying, most everyone on the planet have at least one thing they would die to protect. I find death much preferable to watching my child or loved one die horribly, I think that is pretty much a universal perspective, so once again situation and circumstance matter.
"there is no way you can prove either. Get my point. Morality is simply a matter of perspective… not objective reality."
If there is an objective reality, and we both agreed there is, then there are a limited number of actions we can take. If, say, twenty actions exist, it also becomes true that there is an objectively best choice(an action that best promotes the survival of those we love and ourselves); and objectively worst choice(one that destroys the chances of survival for those we love and ourselves). We may not always apprehend them properly, but they exist, meaning that there actually is an objective standard for the survival of those we love and ourselves.
"If you go by majority… at one point of time a majority of the world thought slavery was right… will that make it right?"
The majority once thought that the world was flat, was that true? We learn what is right, much like we learn what is true, and no amount of appeals to history will change what we have learned.
"You are in fact taking your moral positions based on your subjective perceptions (NOT Objective) which is influenced by a variety of factors such as your culture, your schooling, the period your are living, the values you have been taught and so on…"
And you, my good friend, are taking your moral positions from your subjective choice to follow a religion, which is ALSO influenced by a variety of factors. Whats more, the god you follow takes his moral positions based on his supposed subjective understanding of morality, which is influenced by its subjective desires and will. Your supposed system, does nothing to alleviate the problem of perception, and only compounds it further.
"if you were born into an Africa tribe practicing cannibalism, you would be eating other humans with the coolness of eating animals… if you were born into a particular caste in India, you would see eating of animals as murder, and be as sensitive to it as you are to killing humans… all a matter of perception… no objectivity rules there."
Oh, no, we couldn't possibly become educated and compare these actions against the society that best promotes the survival of the ones we love and ourselves. That would be entirely too complicated! I know! Let's all subjectively follow a god, Odin perhaps, and pretend to have an objective moral system!
"We can...but everyone need NOT necessarily perceive good and bad the same way."
People don't even perceive reality the same way, or god, so it all boils down to perception and not absolute fact anyway. Some people think they are god, some people think they are Napoleon, the only way we have of determining that these other perception are false is by consensus, is it not?
You are missing my point. Perceptions of objective reality could be different… but we can empirically prove which of those perceptions is right or wrong. But there is No way you can empirically prove whether something is morally right or wrong…to go back to the suicide example… you can empirically prove whether a man would die or not if he hanged himself from a rope… but is suicide good or bad… there is no way you can prove it…a man who values his honor above all things, and decides to die because his honor is at stake, is right in his perspective…for another person living is better than dying, and so suicide could be wrong in his perspective… there is no way you can prove either. Get my point. Morality is simply a matter of perspective… not objective reality.
“If we(the majority of humans) perceive that the things described above are bad for us, and we also perceive that other people exist, wouldn't it be normal of us to infer that said things are bad for these other people too?”
If you go by majority… at one point of time a majority of the world thought slavery was right… will that make it right? You are in fact taking your moral positions based on your subjective perceptions (NOT Objective) which is influenced by a variety of factors such as your culture, your schooling, the period your are living, the values you have been taught and so on… if you were born into an Africa tribe practicing cannibalism, you would be eating other humans with the coolness of eating animals… if you were born into a particular caste in India, you would see eating of animals as murder, and be as sensitive to it as you are to killing humans… all a matter of perception… no objectivity rules there.
PRAGMATIC
“How do you make sure???
How do you make sure of the source? What is that source?
How do you make sure that source is infinitely wiser?
How do you make sure that he means well?”
Good questions… here is how I arrived at the conclusions that I reached… Each of the following points are lengthy topics in and of themselves… but I am keeping it short here…
Nature very strongly points to an intelligent designer…
This convinces me of the existence of a creator
And so I go to the sources that talk of such a creator… meaning religions
All the religions, fundamentally, talk of a single creator…
But there are very serious contradictions between the messages of these religions
One creator cannot give contradictory messages…therefore, I start looking for a message that explains this contradiction
Islam explains this contradiction in an intellectually satisfying manner
Having passed that test… I analyze Islam further… it stands on two foundations: Quran + Prophet
I analyze the quran first: It’s a miracle based on the following criteria: Preservation mode, Fulfilment of prophecies, Accuracy of historical details, Explanations of natural phenomena that match the modern understanding, Literary standard of a very high order (which of course I have to rely on testimonies of experts as I do not know the language)
I then study the life of the prophet… and I find it to be
- The most reliable historical documentation of a person’s life ever
- I find him of a very high standard of honesty and integrity
- I find him sincere to his message
In addition, to all these reasons… when I accepted the message, it made me a much better person. (this of course is a personal view, you don’t have to accept it)
“Why? By what standards do you make any assertions at all if you always need a higher authority? How then did you make the assertions that you always need a higher authority?
If you are driving a car and someone walks out infront of the car, do you NOT step on the brakes because you haven't been told to?”
What I meant when I said you need a higher authority to define terms like consciousness etc… is that these terms are so fundamental to our understanding of concepts… that you cannot define them yourself. For example, if you want to define a chair… you have to begin by accepting that it exists and that you are conscious of it… you can’t break these two concepts to more primitive parts… and there’s no way you can prove or disprove them… so, you just have to believe it is so… which is why I stated that if you can take it from a higher authority (whose wisdom you don’t have reasons to doubt) that issue can be settled.
“This is, excuse my languish, completely idiotic.
Being smart does not automatically make what that person says right.
Being smart does not automatically make someone moral.
Being smart does not automatically give authority over others.”
You are right… as far as mortals are concerned… because when you say a person is smart… it’s understood that the guy is knows a lot about certain things… but obviously he does not know everything about all things… this is true of humans… but we are talking of God, whose knowledge encompasses everything in the universe… you may want to dispute that… when you bring up your points, we will discuss it.
“If someone is smarter, but has opinions that are immoral or insane, there is obvious reasons to NOT accept what he says. That person could just as well be using and manipulating others for strictly selfish motives.
This does not mean that there is no reason to listen to smart people.”
You are right, once again. And you could argue that there is no way to know if God means well for us or not. However, from the real world, I can easily see that if it has been created by God, then he must be infinite in his wisdom and power… and when I realize that this power has given us a message… I think it makes logical sense to believe in it and submit to it… rather than dispute it on flimsy grounds.
“Because when scientists publish information, it gets scrutinized by many others. If the scientist's information was wrong, immoral or insane it would be discovered and get critique and probably get ridiculed openly.”
That’s what I am saying too… your reason to trust the research is on a sort of tangential reasoning… you accept that there is no way to directly know the veracity of research findings… as in, you accept the theory of relativity, not because you have worked out the complex math behind it and understood each and every aspect of it… but you are applying a sort of tangent logic… if all the scientists take it seriously… it is unlikely that they are all conspiring against the world to fool all of us… therefore, it must be right. This is the sort of tangential logic I apply to believe in god and following a religion.
“If the worlds smartest scientist starts instructing everyone to worship him and give him offerings.
I don't think he would get any followers at all.”
If all the world’s smartest scientists told that God has been mathematically proven… and they bring up some complex equations, which we don’t understand… but by applying the tangential logic I described above… it would be a logical thing to believe in God. Same with worshipping a scientist…
Valiya - "you accept the theory of relativity, not because you have worked out the complex math behind it"
Actually you can work it with high school geometry from first principles....
- "Nature very strongly points to an intelligent designer… This convinces me of the existence of a creator."
I'm sorry, but this does not justify claiming that "you know" or that "you have made sure".
I can agree that you personally may have become convinced that something is true. But that does not in any way make it true for others. For something in the world around us to be "true" you have to have some way of asserting that.
A magnetic field that can not be seen or felt by touch, it doesn't make a noise, smell or taste. How do we assert that it is actually there, in a way that is not just true for a single person?
By testing, in a way that is repeatable and in some way measurable.
A person can then be told about this magnetic field but, not believe it is true. But by description alone, that person can repeat the same test and be convinced of that it is actually there.
When multiple people can verify that it is in fact true, you can claim to have made sure and that you know.
This is why the words faith and belief is used in when talking about things that are not verifiable. Like praying, faith healing or god. That is why many people say "I have a personal belief".
Evolution can not be tested in the way a magnetic field can. It is however most likley to be true, when examining the evidence. Calculating the age of the Earth, finding fossils that continuosly close the gaps in the chain of evidence, discovering and mapping DNA, and these days even witnessing microevolution makes evolution most likely to be true.
Especially in comparison with antique scriptures that claim that an omnipotent, omniscient and unverifiable entity, uttered some words and magically created all the animals where none of the parts of the claim can in any way be verified.
(If I had more time I would address the other points as well, but time is in shortage these days.)
Pages