I'm currently rereading "The Songs of Distant Earth" by Arthur C. Clarke.
It's set nearly 3,000 years in the future. Clarke has one of the characters summarize the history of religion, which finally comes to end with the development of "statistical theology" around 2050. Basically, statistical theology uses advanced statistical methods to calculate the percentages of good and bad events. The results show a coin-toss ratio of exactly 50-50, which solves the problem of evil and eliminates the need for god and Satan.
Ironically, statistical theology was developed by the theists themselves. One cult thought god was purely evil and used statistics to try and prove it. A rival cult thought god was purely good, and again used statistical methods to back up their claim.
As an atheist, I've always thought that without intervention good and bad things happened in roughly equal measure, and that only human efforts by people of good will can tip the balance toward good.
What do others think?
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.
Well I practice the 4 cardinal virtues Prudence, Justice, Temperance, And fortitude. This helps develop in me a state of grace if you will. I put aside fleshly cravings and I internally strengthen myself to do without. this method if practiced regularly will help purge the world of evil and all kinds of bad things You have to define what do you mean by evil because it takes on a broad definition. The sage Jesus Christ said that mens hearts are evil and that nobody in the eyes of God who is all justice is good. Because of the stain of original sin we therefore need a savior.
Agnostic Believer:
You're completely off-topic and talking nonsense again. If you want to preach, start your own topic.
insanity...or troll???
insanity...or troll??? you decide
@MCD Re: Insanity or troll
Hey, at this point, it could be BOTH.
I've read that 3 times and it is still an absurd non-sequitur? It has nothing whatever to do with the thread topic or OP.
let me ask you Algebe. if i did good to others. does it mean i am good person?
if i did the other way around? does it make me bad?
if a god on high is dictating rules, what is the point of having capacity to evaluate things if im following a set of rules?
and if that god tells me to do something and i don't evaluate it, before i precede with it, aren't i acting immorally?
shouldn't i be evaluating what i'm being told to do, instead of following rule without question?
"if that god tells me to do something and i don't evaluate it, before i precede with it, aren't i acting immorally?"
If you can objectively evaluate the morality of something why do you need a deity? Moreover why does that deity tell us anything if we can make objective moral evaluations? I'd also like to know why religious apologists are constantly claiming objective morality is impossible without divine diktat, yet you seem to be claiming the opposite here?
@Sheldon Re: "...yet you seem to be claiming the opposite here?"
Hey there, Sheldon. If I may, I believe there may have been some confusion in the translation there with Q. If I am reading him correctly, I believe he was asking something of a rhetorical question and basically trying to say that (and, again, this is just how I interpret it): If a person is just following a set of rules he/she believes to be set by some deity, then that person is not really thinking for himself/herself, at which point the capacity to evaluate good or bad is a moot point. However, (and here is where it gets tricky) if a person does have the capacity to evaluate whether something is good/bad/moral/immoral, and that person uses that ability to question the "rules of the deity" before actually following them, is that person good/moral for questioning the deity? Or is that person bad/immoral (in the eyes of religion) for second-guessing a deity that is supposedly all-knowing and all-good? And, if I may take it a step further, it seems to make a point about how many/most theists always claim we cannot have morals without a "divine guide", yet it only seems to make them LESS moral because they are following a set of rules without questioning them. Personally, I question pretty much every rule I have ever had to follow, and many times I have ignored many that did not meet my personal standards. *chuckle* Anyway, I hope I did not slaughter that too badly. Qu@si, please feel free to correct me if I am wrong.
Ah I see, my apologies to Qu@si then. And yes I'd say your assessment is correct, either people are incapable of assessing the morality of their actions and have to blindly follow what they think is divine diktat, in which case they are amoral. Or they can objectively reason whether what is claimed to be divine diktat is in fact moral, in which case why do they need divine diktat at all.
@Qu@si: "let me ask you Algebe..."
Yes. Yes. No point. Yes. Yes.
But I think you should be putting those questions to so-called Agnostic Believer, not me.
Yes I agree that you should consider all the factors and risks before making an decision Q,
Hey, Algebe! Funny you should mention that book. I picked it up right before Christmas, and am about halfway through it at this point. Loving it so far. Everything is going fairly smooth in it at the moment, but I get the feeling things are about to get a little bumpy for the planet shortly. *chuckle* Looking forward to seeing how things go.
And, by golly, Qu@si, you make a damn-fine point there! I like how you think. *Big Grin*
thanks tin-man, appreciate the compliment. I'm just being rational. i have heard this arguments before about morality, something that i just have to say and share.
fruit for thought
@Algebe Re: my apologies, hopefully those believers could read this.
again, my bad bruh.. keep it up.
@Tin-man Rep: "I hope I did not slaughter that too badly. Qu@si, please feel free to correct me if I am wrong."
actually you nailed it bruh. love it, thanks for the support Tin(my)Man
Thanks, Q. I understand things perfectly in my head, but I sometimes have difficulty conveying them coherently to others. Just wanted to be sure.
There is one thing that I find wrong in a way and that is deciding on your own if it is immiscible to make your own morality without an objective to go according to Adolph Hitler and a lot of Germans and the Nazi party thought it was permissible to kill Jews. if everything we take as morals and ethics becomes subjective then I feel we are headed down a slippery slope here .what is to stop another tyrant like a Hitler and others of that elk to get positions of power and kill us all. That`s why left to our own devices I feel that we may be incapable of coming to the right decisions. That`s why we have laws for.
@Agnostic believer: "That`s why we have laws for."
The Nazis made the laws. So did Idi Amin, Mussolini, Pinochet, Pope Alexander, and other assorted monsters. And by the way, your own church, based on its own "objective" morality, sided with Hitler and signed a treaty with him.
Read this if you dare.
https://www.vanityfair.com/style/1999/10/pope-pius-xii-199910
It's an account, by a Catholic journalist, of the role of Eugenio Pacelli, later Pope Pius XII, in the rise of Hitler and the Nazis. The journalist set out to exonerate Pius XII but ended up doing the opposite. The man was a heartless, authoritarian, anti-semite swine. In fact, he was a lot like Adolf Hitler, though perhaps more intelligent.
How can you claim that your religious morality is "objective" when there is even disagreement within your own church?
Hitler, as a good Austrian Catholic, was merely following in the wake of the great Catholic Monarchs of Spain, Holland, England France Austria, Hungary and Russia in periodically having great pogroms against the Jews. In fact the Catholic faith has a far bloodier history against the Jews and other minorities than any Pol Pot, Stalin or Hitler. So your "morality" argument explodes right there.
If you don't know your history don't make stupid baseless pronouncements in a forum where most are well educated. Your argument is worthy of Grade 7 pre seminary Catholic School in it has no merit, no historical basis and no worthwhile position.
Also Elks don't worry me, they make damn fine tucker.
"There is one thing that I find wrong in a way and that is deciding on your own if it is immiscible to make your own morality without an objective to go according to Adolph Hitler and a lot of Germans and the Nazi party thought it was permissible to kill Jews. "
You see no link at all between the centuries of virulent Christian antisemitism and the Holocaust? You do know Hitler was a catholic don't you, and that Germany was and is an overwhelmingly Christian country? The death camps were run by the SS of course, and in Germany you had to be a Christian before they'd allow you to join the SS. Himmler who was a Pagan, not an atheist please note, and Hitler who was a Catholic insisted anyone joining the SS swear an oath of allegiance to Hitler, this was to be done before God. They reasoned the oath would only be taken seriously by those who believed in a deity and swore their oath before that deity. An odd enough thing for an atheist to do, but it would be a truly bizarre thing for an atheists to demand.
-------------------
" if everything we take as morals and ethics becomes subjective then I feel we are headed down a slippery slope here .what is to stop another tyrant like a Hitler and others of that elk to get positions of power and kill us all."
>>Well Germany was overwhelmingly christian, and that didn't prevent Hitler taking power, and he himself was a Catholic. Saddam Hussein seemed to seize power in Iraq, again an overwhelmingly religious country, so what you're claiming makes no rational sense. I'd say laws protecting the rights of the individual were our best defence against tyranny, and a separation of church and state of course. By the way why do keep assuming your religious beliefs about what you think a deity wants are any more objective than atheistic humanist morals that focus on promoting the emotional and physical well being of all people, and limiting suffering as much as possible?
---------------------------
" That`s why left to our own devices I feel that we may be incapable of coming to the right decisions. "
>>How did you DECIDE that?
---------------------------------
"That`s why we have laws for."
>>Yes we do, and they are not based necessarily on archaic and SUBJECTIVE religious beliefs, why would they be?