Support NeoGAF

[JGS]

Sorry if I'm misunderstanding, but you also say you experience these things every day, yes? Surely, then, we could theoretically set up an experiment such that we could check out these things you experience, but without serious skeptics directly involved to mess it up.

Or is your position that the mere existence of an experiment is enough to mess these things up?

How could one do an experiment that validates that prayer to God personally makes them a better person?

But I think most of us don't care what you personally believe as long as you keep it personal. The I love Jesus but hate religion thing was a good message imo.

Although Christianity isn't a forced conversion work, it is a religion that requires you not to keep it personal. So it kind of depends on how annoyed someone can be by someone else's pride in religion since, if the goal is for people to keep quiet about it altogether, many secularists will be disappointed.

Organized Religion does a lot of good, but all the good it does can EASILY be done by a secular organization as well. And these organizations could have one goal, to help others, and no agenda (to instill belief in others)

Hopefully one day. Charity can never have too much money. The nice thing about some religions is the notion that no matter how broke you are, you can be charitable. Who cares what the Catholic Church's agenda is if they are the ones taking care of a large portion of AIDS victims in Africa? They're not putting a stipulation on the care.

 

[Cyan]

Nah, I am not levitating, I am not bending spoons. If someone's mood gets better or heals from some sickness faster because I meditate on the issue, that can be interpreted as me actually sending love and energy to them and it can also mean that "no energy transfer was happening, and the dude is crazy for thinking it otherwise", so we can both keep what we believe in and what we do. But I know that I will never be able to bend spoons because if I would be, I would try to get out there with it ASAP Until I change that behavior (and stay silent whatever happens), then these opportunities would not even present themselves.

Heh. FWIW, I don't think you're crazy.

Anyway, I'm just saying that even that more subtle stuff is in principle measurable. You can do experiments to find out if your meditation does in fact help someone heal faster or get into better moods.

How could one do an experiment that validates that prayer to God personally makes them a better person?

That's not what we were discussing. But I could probably come up with something if you really wanted.

 

[JGS]

That's not what we were discussing. But I could probably come up with something if you really wanted.

Not necessary. It was my misunderstanding then.

 

[Kinitari]

Prayer to god benefiting you always seemed like a weird concept. It always reminded me of the game "black and white" if people remember that game.

If you don't, or haven't played it - you play a god like entitiy, and when people pray to you, you get power - without prayer, you become weak.

So it feels like Abrahamic Gods can only do good when prayed to, or at least, he/it/they are so vain that they only want to do good when someone takes time out of their day to say "We're so lucky you made us! You're awesome! We love you... now about this little problem I'm having..."

 

[The_Darkest_Red]

It depends on what one means by "wrong." The justifications for slavery are illogical. Things which are illogical are commonly referred to as "wrong:" for example it is "wrong" to say that 2+2 = 5, it is "wrong" to say that arsenic is beneficial to the human body in large doses, and it is "wrong" to say that dinosaurs and humans coexisted. Those things are wrong.

Similarly, it is wrong to say that slavery benefits society, or that black people are less human than white people, because logically, those are not correct. This is different than how the term "wrong" is commonly used in religious terms -- where things are "wrong" because God says they are wrong -- but it is nonetheless a form of wrongness and provides a moral code.

So in other words you believe morals should be defined by what is logical and illogical? If something is logical than it is morally right, if something is illogical than it is morally wrong. Is that true?

Suppose we look at a country like India where someone could form an argument based in logic that shows how the country would benefit economically and socially if the population was drastically reduced by killing all of the citizens who did not have any immediate family. The formation of such an argument would certainly be possible, wouldn't it? Would you then assert that this is the "right" choice in this situation? If not then aren't you appealing to something other than logic like emotion or some otherwise undefined moral code? Please forgive the harshness of the example, I'm just trying to take what I believe to be your basis for morality to its logical extremes to make sure I understand what you're positing here.

 

[Zeliard]

What is your single biggest complaint about religion? The doctrines it preaches or the lack of evidence for a deity?

Religion bothers me when it results in a person closing their mind to science, and to actual evidence. Belief in a deity doesn't remotely bug me, and in fact, I'm atheist when it comes to the man-made religions but much more a pure agnostic when it comes to the notion of any deity (though my definition there doesn't really include a personal god, if we define that as one that actually meddles in human affairs, or specifically caused the creation of the Earth so life would arise, and so on).

I do feel the ultimate "answer" is perhaps not something human science can ever empirically breach, whether through our own limitations or just a natural impossibility of such a thing being known (i.e. it's extra-universal and you simply can't leave your universe).

However it's important to accept things that science does tell us, especially if they're counter-intuitive. Our brains largely evolved to roam and survive the African savannah, which is why concepts like quantum mechanics and infinity are so strange and even disturbing.

Not to mention the notion that something that very much appears designed can in fact arise completely "blindly" through an undirected process spanning a great length of time. That's one of the major relevations Darwin gave us and something many people can't accept - that and quantum mechanics allowing for the possibility that something can arise out of "nothing" makes it viable that there really is no governing entity of any sort.

 

[cutmeamango]

Prayer to god benefiting you always seemed like a weird concept. It always reminded me of the game "black and white" if people remember that game.

If you don't, or haven't played it - you play a god like entitiy, and when people pray to you, you get power - without prayer, you become weak.

So it feels like Abrahamic Gods can only do good when prayed to, or at least, he/it/they are so vain that they only want to do good when someone takes time out of their day to say "We're so lucky you made us! You're awesome! We love you... now about this little problem I'm having..."

But by abrahamicism only, your (and lots of 'religious' people) concept is wrong.
Prayer doesn't benefit in this life, it doesn't save or shield you from malade nor is a way of God testing your faith.

--

Quoting myself for the new page

So it seems there's a considerable amount of Gaffers (this quote per example) that consider themselves atheist 'scholars' and haven't read past modern atheists (Dawkins and Hitchens).

So my question is, how informed about classic philosophy (Dawkins wouldn't ever be considered one, by the way) would you consider yourself and how important do you think this knowledge is to your rationalization?
And general science?

 

[Opiate]

So in other words you believe morals should be defined by what is logical and illogical? If something is logical than it is morally right, if something is illogical than it is morally wrong. Is that true?

It depends on how one defines the word "moral," but I would answer yes.

Suppose we look at a country like India where someone could form an argument based in logic that shows how the country would benefit economically and socially if the population was drastically reduced by killing all of the citizens who did not have any immediate family. The formation of such an argument would certainly be possible, wouldn't it? Would you then assert that this is the "right" choice in this situation? If not then aren't you appealing to something other than logic like emotion or some otherwise undefined moral code? Please forgive the harshness of the example, I'm just trying to take what I believe to be your basis for morality to its logical extremes to make sure I understand what you're positing here.

This is something that has been actually been argued by many people. There are several problems with this model, however:

1) How do we choose who dies and who does not? Logically, we could instead kill 300 million Americans, then move 300 million Indians to the United States. This would have the same overall effect on immediate population control.

2) What are the costs associated with these deaths? The benefits are obvious: less starvation. But the costs are harder to measure: how many people will die that would have otherwise contributed greatly to society? How many scientists who would have found a vaccine? How many engineers who would have invented an important new invention?

3) Is it logical to be kind? This is perhaps the most important qualifer at all. That is, in the absence of absolute knowledge on a subject (which we obviously lack in a case as complex as the one you are suggesting), I believe it is reasonable to default to a position of kindness and compassion. In the face of enormous uncertainty and complexity, compassion works out more often than harshness.

There are many other reasons that such a choice becomes very complicated. Taking a slightly less complex (but still extreme) example, one could ask: is it ever okay to kill someone?

Your instinct might be "no," but what if that person were to run at you wielding a knife saying, "I'm going to kill you?" In that case, reason suggests that it is likely that either you will die or he will, and it is reasonable to kill him. This is referred to as "self defense," and is considered appropriate and right in our world -- not just in religious contexts, but in legal and rational ones, too.

 

[JGS]

Prayer to god benefiting you always seemed like a weird concept. It always reminded me of the game "black and white" if people remember that game.

If you don't, or haven't played it - you play a god like entitiy, and when people pray to you, you get power - without prayer, you become weak.

So it feels like Abrahamic Gods can only do good when prayed to, or at least, he/it/they are so vain that they only want to do good when someone takes time out of their day to say "We're so lucky you made us! You're awesome! We love you... now about this little problem I'm having..."

Not saying you in particular, but this is actually the way I think many atheists view it. By not praying or being being morally outraged by what God requires, you effectively kill him.

Prayer has nothing to do with God's power since he has it with or without us or "blessing" from him (Since chance & circumstance happen to all of us). It's a communication tool that helps us to stay focused and let's God know we concern ourselves with him.

 

[Kinitari]

So in other words you believe morals should be defined by what is logical and illogical? If something is logical than it is morally right, if something is illogical than it is morally wrong. Is that true?

Suppose we look at a country like India where someone could form an argument based in logic that shows how the country would benefit economically and socially if the population was drastically reduced by killing all of the citizens who did not have any immediate family. The formation of such an argument would certainly be possible, wouldn't it? Would you then assert that this is the "right" choice in this situation? If not then aren't you appealing to something other than logic like emotion or some otherwise undefined moral code? Please forgive the harshness of the example, I'm just trying to take what I believe to be your basis for morality to its logical extremes to make sure I understand what you're positing here.

I am sure opiate will answer this soon, and I maybe even have an idea of what he'll say - but if you want to look for morality guided by logic, look at Utilitarianism.

Not saying you in particular, but this is actually the way I think many atheists view it. By not praying or being being morally outraged by what God requires, you effectively kill him.

Prayer has nothing to do with God's power since he has it with or without us or "blessing" from him (Since chance & circumstance happen to all of us). It's a communication tool that helps us to stay focused and let's God know we concern ourselves with him.

I don't know if Atheists think that not praying to a non-existent being is going to reduce it's non-existent power, that's a weird argument to make - that person is no longer an Atheist.

But, that doesn't address the crux of my point - the idea that God might see your suffering, your need, and even your deference to him - but wont act to help until you tell him how much you love him and how awesome he is.

 

[The_Darkest_Red]

I am sure opiate will answer this soon, and I maybe even have an idea of what he'll say - but if you want to look for morality guided by logic, look at Utilitarianism.

Isn't that based in happiness though? Maximum happiness isn't necessarily the most logical option at all times, is it?

 

[The Technomancer]

Opiate is going into some of the larger issues that we're going to be forced to face in the upcoming century. Its been a powerful ideal for quite some time in much of "civilization" that its our responsibility to ensure that as many people survive as possible for as long as possible at whatever the cost. But with rising population problems we're going to have to face whether it's more moral to work to ensure that everyone stays alive, or is it more moral to let some people die because we think that supporting that many people is unsustainable for the whole of humanity.

 

[Orayn]

Q to atheist GAF:

What is your single biggest complaint about religion? The doctrines it preaches or the lack of evidence for a deity?

With or without a god, people will believe in silly things that aren't supported by evidence. Humans are so good at recognizing patterns that superstition due to false positives is pretty much guaranteed. In that sense, I can't really single out belief in god as being too egregiously irrational.

What concerns me more is religion's power. It gives people a sense of belonging and builds communities - Those things aren't religion's exclusive domain, but they're usually benign. No, what scares me is how many religions teach people to stop asking questions. When you establish a source of truth that doesn't need to be vetted by an external source, like an infallible holy book, prophet, or creed, you start down a dangerous path. Inevitably, some people will follow that source of truth with absolute devotion, sometimes to dangerous ends. My biggest problem with religion is that some elements of it are designed to turn people in slaves to a certain set of ideas that they are discouraged from questioning. It may only be in a few select aspects of their lives, but I consider it a scary proposition nonetheless.

 

[Kinitari]

Isn't that based in happiness though? Maximum happiness isn't necessarily the most logical option at all times, is it?

Well, you have to assert some base rules first - if you say "I think the best thing is to have as many people happy and healthy as possible" - then you go from that, and make logical conclusions. There are a few different 'ofshoots' of Utilitarianism, where they assert more or less ground rules, but it remains the same general idea - you work for the benefit of society as a whole, even making sacrifices when need be.

Opiate is going into some of the larger issues that we're going to be forced to face in the upcoming century. Its been a powerful ideal for quite some time in much of "civilization" that its our responsibility to ensure that as many people survive as possible for as long as possible at whatever the cost. But with rising population problems we're going to have to face whether it's more moral to work to ensure that everyone stays alive, or is it more moral to let some people die because we think that supporting that many people is unsustainable for the whole of humanity.

We still have a lot of room left, with our current technological advances, we can hold about another 3 billion people - who knows, maybe by the time we would get close to that number, we'll be advanced enough to hold 15billion total. And more interestingly - a reduction in nationalism and a focus on making the entire world a 'first world nation' would probably the best way to reduce population. People have less babies in first world nations.

 

[The_Darkest_Red]

Opiate is going into some of the larger issues that we're going to be forced to face in the upcoming century. Its been a powerful ideal for quite some time in much of "civilization" that its our responsibility to ensure that as many people survive as possible for as long as possible at whatever the cost. But with rising population problems we're going to have to face whether it's more moral to work to ensure that everyone stays alive, or is it more moral to let some people die because we think that supporting that many people is unsustainable for the whole of humanity.

I shudder at the thought of a world where the second option is seen as the right one.

Well, you have to assert some base rules first - if you say "I think the best thing is to have as many people happy and healthy as possible" - then you go from that, and make logical conclusions. There are a few different 'ofshoots' of Utilitarianism, where they assert more or less ground rules, but it remains the same general idea - you work for the benefit of society as a whole, even making sacrifices when need be.

Why assert that in the first place, though? Why not just assert, "I think the best thing is for me to be as happy and healthy as possible." How can you logically demonstrate that it is beneficial for one to care about the whole as opposed to strictly himself and his own well-being?

In a godless universe why would it truly matter how happy society was? How would that ultimately be any more meaningful than how happy any other random organism on earth was?

 

[Evolved1]

I see, I misinterpreted this post by you. However, this doesn't change the general argument. From a purely logical perspective, Pascal's wager is correct. There are four possible outcomes:

1) If I believe in God and I am right, then I have a higher chance of entering heaven.

2) If I believe in God and I am wrong, then I cease to exist as soon as I die and my body rots away in a grave.

3) If I do not believe in God and I am right, then I cease to exist as soon as I die and my body rots away in a grave.

4) If I do not believe in God and I am wrong, then I have a higher chance of burning in hell for all eternity.

From a strategic viewpoint (which appears to be what you're asking about, here), it is definitely better to believe in a God than not to believe in on. The best possible outcome for an atheist (rotting in the grave), is the worst possible outcome if you are a theist. By believing in God, there is nowhere to go but up. As an atheist myself I can say that it is not typically a chosen system because it is emotionally pleasing. It is far nicer to imagine the world is an orderly place, in which I am an important part.

Hopefully Pascal picked the right god. There are quite a few to choose from.

 

[Zeliard]

Opiate is going into some of the larger issues that we're going to be forced to face in the upcoming century. Its been a powerful ideal for quite some time in much of "civilization" that its our responsibility to ensure that as many people survive as possible for as long as possible at whatever the cost. But with rising population problems we're going to have to face whether it's more moral to work to ensure that everyone stays alive, or is it more moral to let some people die because we think that supporting that many people is unsustainable for the whole of humanity.

It's never going to get to the latter. Population control measures will be initiated, no doubt, but it won't ever be via the purposeful killing of those deemed not worthy to live.

 

[The Technomancer]

I shudder at the thought of a world where the second option is seen as the right one.

See, that's exactly what I'm talking about. We have this strong emotional ideal, but what if in the course of events it becomes clear that holding to that ideal is slowly destroying us?

It's never going to get to the latter. Population control measures will be initiated, no doubt, but it won't ever be via the purposeful killing of those deemed not worthy to live.

Is there a distinction between "killing" and "letting die"?

 

[The_Darkest_Red]

See, that's exactly what I'm talking about. We have this strong emotional ideal, but what if in the course of events it becomes clear that holding to that ideal is slowly destroying us?

Then I will continue to cling to that ideal until the day I die based on my religious-based convictions.

 

[Kinitari]

Why assert that in the first place, though? Why not just assert, "I think the best thing is for me to be as happy and healthy as possible." How can you logically demonstrate that it is beneficial for one to care about the whole as opposed to strictly himself and his own well-being?

Well we can break this down more.

I, personally, would like it if we could travel to outerspace easily, or create really awesome robots, or advance as a species a lot more. This would be cool to me. I know I can't do this on my own. The larger and more cohesive society is, the more opportunities for technological advancement present themselves - therefore, I want a large, happy and healthy society, to personally fulfill my selfish desires.

That's a personal take on the matter, but we can go so far as to discuss our instinctual link to what we perceive as morality.

 

[CrazyDogg77]

With or without a god, people will believe in silly things that aren't supported by evidence. Humans are so good at recognizing patterns that superstition due to false positives is pretty much guaranteed. In that sense, I can't really single out belief in god as being too egregiously irrational.

What concerns me more is religion's power. It gives people a sense of belonging and builds communities - Those things aren't religion's exclusive domain, but they're usually benign. No, what scares me is how many religions teach people to stop asking questions. When you establish a source of truth that doesn't need to be vetted by an external source, like an infallible holy book, prophet, or creed, you start down a dangerous path. Inevitably, some people will follow that source of truth with absolute devotion, sometimes to dangerous ends. My biggest problem with religion is that some elements of it are designed to turn people in slaves to a certain set of ideas that they are discouraged from questioning. It may only be in a few select aspects of their lives, but I consider it a scary proposition nonetheless.

I can understand this idea. I think however that those who blindly follow their faith and never seek knowledge or question it aren't following it as they should.

 

[Kinitari]

Is there a distinction between "killing" and "letting die"?

I think he was implying more like, birthing laws. But even then, I doubt it'll get as bad as all that.

 

[Cyan]

Suppose we look at a country like India where someone could form an argument based in logic that shows how the country would benefit economically and socially if the population was drastically reduced by killing all of the citizens who did not have any immediate family. The formation of such an argument would certainly be possible, wouldn't it? Would you then assert that this is the "right" choice in this situation? If not then aren't you appealing to something other than logic like emotion or some otherwise undefined moral code? Please forgive the harshness of the example, I'm just trying to take what I believe to be your basis for morality to its logical extremes to make sure I understand what you're positing here.

Our instinctive flinch away from this suggests that your economic and social benefits aren't enough to counterbalance all those deaths. Thus, utilitarianism would have us not do it.

 

[Orayn]

I can understand this idea. I think however that those who blindly follow their faith and never seek knowledge or question it aren't following it as they should.

I disagree. It's entirely possible for a religion, or a sect of a religion, to be explicitly opposed to critical thinking or dissenting from official dogma. It's not common in the modern day, but it's still an idea that scares the Bajeezus out of me. It only takes one charismatic, influential nutcase to lead lots of people into doing very bad things. I'll admit that this kind of extremism can also be associated with political ideology, nationalism, or other ways of thinking, but does tend to be one of its most common because of its aforementioned tendency to declare some things to be absolutely true.

 

[Zeliard]

Is there a distinction between "killing" and "letting die"?

Well, if you're "letting" someone die, there's the implication that they could have otherwise survived. If that isn't their will, or if you aren't some family member pulling the plug on someone who is near death, i.e. euthanasia, then it's gross negligence to a degree that may as well qualify as murder - if not legally than certainly morally.

 

[JGS]

I am sure opiate will answer this soon, and I maybe even have an idea of what he'll say - but if you want to look for morality guided by logic, look at Utilitarianism.


I don't know if Atheists think that not praying to a non-existent being is going to reduce it's non-existent power, that's a weird argument to make - that person is no longer an Atheist.

But, that doesn't address the crux of my point - the idea that God might see your suffering, your need, and even your deference to him - but wont act to help until you tell him how much you love him and how awesome he is.

Talking figuratively of course. Atheists shouldn't be outraged at all regarding the things God does. That doesn't mean they won't use him as an example or point out why he's wrong about stuff.

I've seen in some of the other threads the reason They became atheist is because of the horrible things the Bible teaches. The two don't really go together. For example if I thought God was pro-torture that wouldn't mean I would stop believing in him. I would just stop worshipping him.

 

[The_Darkest_Red]

Our instinctive flinch away from this suggests that your economic and social benefits aren't enough to counterbalance all these deaths. Thus, utilitarianism would have us not do it.

What if that instinctive flinch is a product of your weak emotional backbone and your inability to make rational, logic-based decisions that will ultimately benefit the majority? Furthermore, humans will not always arrive at a consensus regarding these types of decisions. In such an event, who is right? The majority? Because the majority 100 years ago had no problem with slavery.

 

[soul creator]

Q to atheist GAF:

What is your single biggest complaint about religion? The doctrines it preaches or the lack of evidence for a deity?

This article sums it up best for me

Essentially, it's the idea that there's no "reality check" when it comes to religion (at least, any supernatural based religion...I know there's some debate about whether some versions of Buddhism count as a religion for example, but whatever).

The lack of reality check is the one thing that makes religion unique in comparison to other philosophies and worldviews. Religion even often makes a virtue out of its lack of reality check (God is outside of science! I feel it in my heart to be true! I don't need evidence! We'll find out in the afterlife!), which makes it even more worrisome. Cuz if you accept that type of reasoning, that's effectively admitting that "anything goes".

 

[Cyan]

What if that instinctive flinch is a product of your weak emotional backbone and your inability to make rational, logic-based decisions that will ultimately benefit the majority? Furthermore, humans will not always arrive at a consensus regarding these types of decisions. In such an event, who is right? The majority? Because the majority 100 years ago had no problem with slavery.

You can't separate out emotion--utilitarianism is about utility, and utility is absolutely related to emotion. The rational, logic-based decision must include and account for human emotion. We're not all Vulcans here.

Think of it this way: if you could choose to be a random person in India, where you have a chance of being killed, and a chance of remaining alive and benefiting from the newly more prosperous society, would you take it? If your answer is no, then the answer by utilitarianism should also be no. The negative utility of dying outweighs the positive utility of the better society.

 

[CrazyDogg77]

I disagree. It's entirely possible for a religion, or a sect of a religion, to be explicitly opposed to critical thinking or dissenting from official dogma. It's not common in the modern day, but it's still an idea that scares the Bajeezus out of me. It only takes one charismatic, influential nutcase to lead lots of people into doing very bad things. I'll admit that this kind of extremism can also be associated with political ideology, nationalism, or other ways of thinking, but does tend to be one of its most common because of its aforementioned tendency to declare some things to be absolutely true.

Oh no,I agree that a religion can be opposed to critical thinking and good decision making. In your example of the charismatic nutcase I believe that individual is manipulating others' faith not fulfilling the express purpose of the religion unless it is one designed to keep people ignorant. And in this case it's definitely a horrible problem.

 

[Kinitari]

What if that instinctive flinch is a product of your weak emotional backbone and your inability to make rational, logic-based decisions that will ultimately benefit the majority? Furthermore, humans will not always arrive at a consensus regarding these types of decisions. In such an event, who is right? The majority? Because the majority 100 years ago had no problem with slavery.

You're looking for absolutes when there aren't any - utilitarianism for example, doesn't claim that any one person, or group of people, are an absolute authority or the final arbiters of what is the correct path to take - it's simply an ideology someone can use to address ethical dilemmas. You're thinking of it too much like... a religion. An ideology shared by a group, where they all come to a consensus and try to reach a particular target - with leadership at the front etc.

It's much simpler, and much more personal than that.

In the end - there is no absolute morality, there is no absolute right and wrong - we simply try to perpetuate what we feel is right and wrong, and make that the defacto standard - I would never claim to do anything else.

 

[Omegasquash]

This article sums it up best for me

Essentially, it's the idea that there's no "reality check" when it comes to religion (at least, any supernatural based religion...I know there's some debate about whether some versions of Buddhism count as a religion for example, but whatever).

The lack of reality check is the one thing that makes religion unique in comparison to other philosophies and worldviews. Religion even often makes a virtue out of its lack of reality check (God is outside of science! I feel it in my heart to be true! I don't need evidence! We'll find out in the afterlife!), which makes it even more worrisome. Cuz if you accept that type of reasoning, that's effectively admitting that "anything goes".

It's that "trust me, you'll understand AFTER YOU'RE DEAD" part that contributed to my quiet exit from a life of faith. That and, y'know, cancer, the old testament (parts, anyway), the new testament (parts, anyway), the church finally getting around to forgiving Galileo...there's lots of stuff there, but the "trust us" part was the most personal.

 

[The_Darkest_Red]

You can't separate out emotion--utilitarianism is about utility, and utility is absolutely related to emotion. The rational, logic-based decision must include and account for human emotion. We're not all Vulcans here.

Think of it this way: if you could choose to be a random person in India, where you have a chance of being killed, and a chance of remaining alive and benefiting from the newly more prosperous society, would you take it? If your answer is no, then the answer by utilitarianism should also be no. The negative utility of dying outweighs the positive utility of the better society.

But just because one person answers the question one way doesn't mean everyone will answer it that way. It also doesn't actually say anything about whether or not the Utilitarian model for morality is actually the "right" one. It doesn't tell us why we should trust our emotions. It doesn't tell us why our emotions are more valuable than logic at times, and why logic should at other times outweigh emotion. It doesn't account for the extreme variances in emotion that humans exhibit. What is the point in considering logic in a system alongside something as completely unreliable as emotion? Why should emotion be allowed to interfere with logic, or logic with emotion? I see too much conflict and subjectivity for this system to be of any real use.

In the end - there is no absolute morality, there is no absolute right and wrong - we simply try to perpetuate what we feel is right and wrong, and make that the defacto standard - I would never claim to do anything else.

This is what you believe, and it isn't true by necessity. I believe that "instinctive flinch" that we discussed is a product of absolute morals that are inherently present within every human being. I believe that when I read about a horrendous crime I can know for certain that the performed act was one of evil and was wrong in an absolute sense.

 

[Kinitari]

This is what you believe, and it isn't true by necessity. I believe that "instinctive flinch" that we discussed is a product of absolute morals that are inherently present within every human being.

The idea that there is an absolute morality is as baseless as the idea of an absolute divine being - so I guess that's where our paths split.

But I'll one up you - I'll say if there is a system of absolute morality, humans, by our very nature of being non-omniscient beings, can never know it. Thus, regardless we still utilize subjective morality.

And that 'instinctual flinch' varies from person to person on a whole slew of different topics, would you disagree?

 

[The Technomancer]

But just because one person answers the question one way doesn't mean everyone will answer it that way. It also doesn't actually say anything about whether or not the Utilitarian model for morality is actually the "right" one. It doesn't tell us why we should trust our emotions. It doesn't tell us why our emotions are more valuable than logic at times, and why logic should at other times outweigh emotion. It doesn't account for the extreme variances in emotion that humans exhibit. What is the point in considering logic in a system alongside something as completely unreliable as emotion? Why should emotion be allowed to interfere with logic, or logic with emotion? I see too much conflict and subjectivity for this system to be of any real use.

Logic and emotion are intrinsically tied. Emotion has a rational base. You have to take emotion into acount, its part of how the brain functions.

 

[soul creator]

morals aren't some mysterious substance floating out in space, waiting to be found. They're inherently human concepts, so they're subjective, almost by definition

That said, we are all human beings with similar brains, and similar root needs, so to some degree, you can make "objective" observations about that, and eventually come up with a moral code based on those observations.

But that doesn't mean there's some single all-powerful answer to everything, no matter how much we feel in our hearts there should be (see what I did there?)

 

[The_Darkest_Red]

The idea that there is an absolute morality is as baseless as the idea of an absolute divine being - so I guess that's where our paths split.

But I'll one up you - I'll say if there is a system of absolute morality, humans, by our very nature of being non-omniscient beings, can never know it. Thus, regardless we still utilize subjective morality.

And that 'instinctual flinch' varies from person to person on a whole slew of different topics, would you disagree?

Yes, I do believe that morals are interpreted differently by humans. However, I believe we are all born with the same moral code written on our hearts, and that the specifics of those morals have been twisted, altered, or maybe even refined by our personal experiences and lives, so that the interpretation and some of the specifics will vary from person to person. The morals themselves are absolute, but our understanding of them is subjective. Still, it allows us to be clear on a great many issues (murder, for example).

Logic and emotion are intrinsically tied. Emotion has a rational base. You have to take emotion into acount, its part of how the brain functions.

Doesn't this type of claim have the potential to cause some problems for the scientist? They wouldn't allow emotion to influence their decisions, would they? Why should things be any different regarding morality (or politics)?

 

[Sutton Dagger]

You're looking for absolutes when there aren't any - utilitarianism for example, doesn't claim that any one person, or group of people, are an absolute authority or the final arbiters of what is the correct path to take - it's simply an ideology someone can use to address ethical dilemmas. You're thinking of it too much like... a religion. An ideology shared by a group, where they all come to a consensus and try to reach a particular target - with leadership at the front etc.

It's much simpler, and much more personal than that.

In the end - there is no absolute morality, there is no absolute right and wrong - we simply try to perpetuate what we feel is right and wrong, and make that the defacto standard - I would never claim to do anything else.

As a fellow Atheist, I completely disagree...look at that, we don't all think the same

If we use a moral framework that accounts for the 'well being' of conscious creatures, we can (and will continue to) reach objective moral understandings through the use of the scientific method. This doesn't mean that there will be one answer to the moral problems we face, instead there will be peeks and valleys (Sam Harris' moral landscape) that can be objectively indentified.

 

[Kinitari]

As a fellow Atheist, I completely disagree...look at that, we don't all think the same

If we use a moral framework that accounts for the 'well being' of conscious creatures, we can (and will continue to) reach objective moral understandings through the use of the scientific method. This doesn't mean that there will be one answer to the moral problems we face, instead there will be peeks and valleys (Sam Harris' moral landscape) that can be objectively indentified.

What criteria would a moral framework have to embody for it to be objective?

 

[The_Darkest_Red]

As a fellow Atheist, I completely disagree...look at that, we don't all think the same

If we use a moral framework that accounts for the 'well being' of conscious creatures, we can (and will continue to) reach objective moral understandings through the use of the scientific method. This doesn't mean that there will be one answer to the moral problems we face, instead there will be peeks and valleys (Sam Harris' moral landscape) that can be objectively indentified.

I'll be honest, I find Sam Harris' claims that objective morals can be defined through science to be absolutely absurd. I really think it betrays how little his understanding of basic philosophical concepts is.

Sam Harris begs the question often in that book. I'm reminded of a particular review on Amazon that highlights the difference between what Sam Harris wants to accomplish and what he actually accomplishes:

"Can science tell us how to achieve X, assuming that X is moral/desirable/valuable?" Instead, the question is, "Can science determine *whether* X is moral/desirable/valuable?"

Harris answers the first question instead of the second, which really has nothing to do with defining an objective moral standard.

In other words, he starts the entire argument by begging the question regarding what is moral/desirable/valuable in the first place, without ever giving a convincing argument for why that is. It really demonstrates a lack of proper argumentation skills on his part.

 

[Erigu]

in reality most atheists here are gnostic.

How did you reach that conclusion, exactly?

 

[Sutton Dagger]

What criteria would a moral framework have to embody for it to be objective?

The 'well being' of conscious creatures as determined by the usual methods of understanding a phenomenon objectively, through the scientific method. This particularly encompasses using the emerging neuroscientific fields.

 

[The_Darkest_Red]

The 'well being' of conscious creatures as determined by the usual methods of understanding a phenomenon objectively, through the scientific method. This particularly encompasses using the emerging neuroscientific fields.

Again, though, science cannot tell us why that is moral. What you're doing is presupposing that it is moral and then showing the steps we must take to get there. You're begging the question.

 

[soul creator]

As a fellow Atheist, I completely disagree...look at that, we don't all think the same

If we use a moral framework that accounts for the 'well being' of conscious creatures, we can (and will continue to) reach objective moral understandings through the use of the scientific method. This doesn't mean that there will be one answer to the moral problems we face, instead there will be peeks and valleys (Sam Harris' moral landscape) that can be objectively indentified.

I actually pretty much agree with you as well, though my previous post may make it seem otherwise. Although I often notice a lot of times that agreement/disagreement between non-believers almost always come down to definitions and semantics, lol.

For example, I would say that a society where rape is minimal to non-existent, is absolutely and objectively better than a society with mass rape, all else being equal.

Of course, this is usually the point where someone comes in and says "well what about the rapist who thinks rape is good?? See, it's subjective!" And then that is where Sam Harris says "this is a crazy person saying the moral equivalent of 'having cancerous lungs is healthier than non-cancerous lungs.' Don't take them seriously." Which is kind of where I tend to fall, lol.

Rape is objectively "wrong" in the context of human beings with human brains that respond negatively to pain, distress, family and friends being hurt, etc. Yes those things are technically "assumptions", but it seems no worse an assumption than "no cancer is healthier than debilitating cancer". If we're not even allowed to assume that...then shit, what is the point of discussing anything? *shrug*

I believe Zaptruder said something like this once...if morals aren't about the general well-being of conscious beings, which deals with neuroscience, biology, sociology, psychology, etc...what the fuck are they about?

 

[Kinitari]

The 'well being' of conscious creatures as determined by the usual methods of understanding a phenomenon objectively, through the scientific method. This particularly encompasses using the emerging neuroscientific fields.

And how did you come by these criteria - was it objectively? We can take this further and ask, what is objectivity?

The point being, you're making assumptions as to what is morally objective, with no adequate reasoning as to why your claims are objective. Your first mistake is to assume that objectively, we should exist as a species - is objective morality strictly defined as benefiting humanity? What about the planet? Galaxy? Universe? Take it even further back, why is 'life' objectively something worth protecting?

 

[To Far Away Times]

Q to atheist GAF:

What is your single biggest complaint about religion? The doctrines it preaches or the lack of evidence for a deity?

As an atheist I think there are good and bad parts to religious doctrine. It's the basis for the laws in our society, which for the most part, are a good thing. Religion also brings much needed charity work, but can be frustratingly selfish on certain social issues.

My biggest complaint is the lack of evidence, or sometimes a willingness to ignore evidence that conflicts with beliefs rather than examining it.

In some cases I don't think its a matter of wanting to see all sides of the story, but a matter of not wanting to be wrong.

...And really, it's human nature. We don't want to be wrong.

I have family members that adamantly deny evolution because it conflicts with the creation story, yet when I try to explain what the theory of evolution really is, the only thing on their mind is "We didn't come from monkeys." They've already dismissed the theory, they don't really understand it from how they explain it to me, and don't really care to understand it any further.

I was born into a religious family and baptized twice over, but as I became older I examined the facts and I arrived at a different conclusion. I'm glad I did, though it took a while for me to come to terms with that everything I had believed in previously was wrong to me now.

What prompted my lack of faith is when I asked myself if I could find someone who was completely neutral to science and religion (if such a person could exist) and they were exposed to both religious text and scientific research papers for the first time, which one would they chose? Which one makes the stronger argument?

I'm not saying that it's impossible to reach a conclusion to become religious after some critical thought, I'm saying that many people try to avoid thinking critically and just continue to believe in what they were raised with because that's the way it's always been. For many religious people, any conflicting information is an "attack" on religion, rather than something that could be seriously considered.

...I know, because that used to be me.

With religion, we try to fit everything we know and everything we discover into the confines of already established beliefs.

What is so attractive about the scientific method to me is that scientists are willing to admit when they are wrong. They don't need to fit their ideas within a religious framework. New discoveries are exciting, not threatening. New evidence is scrutinized, and if it passes, it becomes the new standard. And if it doesn't pass, we still learned something valuable in that it doesn't work.

So there you have it. A look into the mind of an atheist.

 

[Sutton Dagger]

I'll be honest, I find Sam Harris' claims that objective morals can be defined through science to be absolutely absurd. I really think it betrays how little his understanding of basic philosophical concepts is.

Sam Harris begs the question often in that book. I'm reminded of a particular review on Amazon that highlights the difference between what Sam Harris wants to accomplish and what he actually accomplishes:



Harris answers the first question instead of the second, which really has nothing to do with defining an objective moral standard.

In other words, he starts the entire argument by begging the question regarding what is moral/desirable/valuable in the first place, without ever giving a convincing argument for why that is. It really demonstrates a lack of proper argumentation skills on his part.

The irony is you have framed moral absolutism in the context of a God without demonstrating why your God is/has any moral authority in the first place.

Instead I would prefer to frame my morals around the thing that actually impacts on the very existence of conscious beings, that is the promotion of well being. Your moral framework may actually objectively (using our acquired knowledge of well being) impact our well being in a negative manner, and quite often does.

 

[The_Darkest_Red]

The irony is you have framed moral absolutism in the context of a God without demonstrating why your God is/has any moral authority in the first place.

Instead I would prefer to frame my morals around the thing that actually impacts on the very existence of conscious beings, that is the promotion of well being. Your moral framework may actually objectively (using our acquired knowledge of well being) impact our well being in a negative manner, and quite often does.

The Christian God is absolute and unchanging. Morals, in my worldview, are a reflection of his character, his very nature, and are therefore absolute by necessity. He doesn't make the rules, he is the rules. That is how they are absolute and that is why we, creatures created in his image, are subject to them.

That's fine that you've chosen a different place from which to derive your morals. I won't argue that morals derived from science are terrible or always wrong or anything like that, but I do think it's quite absurd to claim that they are objective, for the reasons I've stated as well as Kinitari's very well reasoned post.

Also, when you say "may actually objectively (using our acquired knowledge of well being)" you are basically saying, "may actually objectively (using subjective criteria X...)."

 

[Sutton Dagger]

Again, though, science cannot tell us why that is moral. What you're doing is presupposing that it is moral and then showing the steps we must take to get there. You're begging the question.

This may simply be a problem of semantics. What does 'moral' actually mean? Is there only one definition? The term may be entirely irrelevant in the context of this discussion.

You may say 'but why does it matter if we promote well being', or 'why do morals need to relate to conscious creatures'? I would say what other criteria would we need to use? Our experiences as conscious beings is all that really matters to us because we are the ones conceiving of such things.

 

[Kinitari]

This may simply be a problem of semantics. What does 'moral' actually mean? Is there only one definition? The term may be entirely irrelevant in the context of this discussion.

You may say 'but why does it matter if we promote well being', or 'why do morals need to relate to conscious creatures'? I would say what other criteria would we need to use? Our experiences as conscious beings is all that really matters to us because we are the ones conceiving of such things.

Which is something I would agree with completely, but I would never even begin to assume it is in any way that my experiences, or our collective experiences, could lead us to an objective path of 'right and wrong' - that takes a level of consciousness, or more importantly, a lack of consciousness unavailable to us. And I feel this is an important, not just semantic difference.

Philosophical objectivity is usually defined as something being objective separate from the consciousness of the person who has made the claim - but it's impossible for any of us to separate from our consciousness and view the world on that 'plane' - and I mean that in regards to the religious and the non-religious alike.

Instead, borrowing from the scientific method, we never claim to know objective truth, we simply attempt to work with what we know, and leave ourselves always open for the possibility that we are wrong. When you claim absolute objectivity, you can never be wrong, and that is a dangerous idea.