Problems with Atheism

@ossobuco,

ossobuco wrote:

Cardinal Ratzinger mandated that an IUD was effectively abortion as it kept a fertilized egg from implanting successfully. Part of the fight with Hans Kung, circa 1963 or 1964.

No, we don't all agree re abortion facts.

Ratzinger? I thought that was Monty Python. But then again, what's the difference?

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Quote:

ebrown p wrote:
Thomas, let me push on your "pain as bad" standard with a direct question; if this is a the case, was impregnating my wife (which was consensual) immoral because I knew it would cause pain?

Probably not. Granted, your act deserves moral disapproval to the extent that its consequences for your wife's were painful. But it also deserved moral approval to the extent that its consequences were pleasant and joyful.

This lot is ridiculous. "Probably not" eh? Sheesh. That's relativism with knobs on. Tailor made morality.

There is not necessarily pain in childbirth. I've heard a few women say it was like going to the toilet. Some people, Tolstoy for example, put most pain down to nervous tension partly racked up by talk such as that above. So did Howard Hughes. There are also anaesthetics.

There is risk of pain. As in sport and economic activity. There is risk of pain to the child in an 80 year long life. Is betting or hoping there will be no pain immoral? Chancing the pain of others on one's own opinion of what "probably not" means subjectively. Is that immoral?

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Quote:

Ratzinger? I thought that was Monty Python. But then again, what's the difference?

Only that one is a bit of childish entertainment and the other is head of a 2,000 year old institution without which it is impossible to imagine this thread existing.

0 Replies

I am playing the role of skeptic here-- let's examine the claim that "pain is bad" in a scientific/logical way. A key part of the Judeo/Christian creation narrative is the phrase "and God saw that it was good"-- there was a deity there to ascribe some moral value to natural phenomena.

And this is the problem-- without religion, there is no way objectively to judge between natural phenomenon. Who is to say that one naturally occurring phenomenon is good while another is bad? Value judgments are not testable or observable.

Let's look at pain in a logical/scientific way.

Pain is a simply chemical reaction (or a class of chemical reactions depending on the definition of pain we are using). But, there is nothing mystical about this. As I have pointed out, humans (and most other animals) adapted to react to this specific chemical reaction because this has survival value-- but there are many chemical reactions that cause us to react.

What you are doing is singling out one chemical reaction (which in itself has no scientific meaning). And, you are ascribing meaning to it.

As a skeptic, there are all kinds of ways I could poke at the meaning you have given to a natural phenomenon. I think in my last couple of posts (where I tried to show you that the meaning you are ascribing to nature are in error) I missed the point. It won't matter to you... you have accepted your idea of good/bad as a core point in your worldview-- it has become something that is unquestionable by logical argument.

You are a human being-- and human beings have evolved to think symbolically (because of survival value which is neither good or bad). Ascribing arbitrary value to natural phenomenon is something that humans do.

And that is the reason we have religion.

2 Replies

@ebrown p,

And it is only religion which has created the moral values of Thomas and Setanta and fresco. They indulge a twee conceit that they would have the same moral values had there been no Christianity.

And before Christianity pain was the main method of social control and also a part of the entertainment industry. Okay--it still is to an extent but a lot less than it was. To draw attention to the pain during Christianity is a red herring.

The Monte Python jibe tells you all you need to know about the intellectual capacities of your opponents eb. Any dig will suffice if it is necessary to dig in order to clarify some personal issues to one's own satisfaction.

The inhibitions the Church enjoins derive from the ordering of society. The dogmas are to give them force. The blithe assumption that the dogmas are the source is a straw man.

3 Replies

@spendius,

twaddle.

0 Replies

@spendius,

Spendius, you aren't helping any case you think I am making.

I especially enjoy these respectful intellectual discussions I have with Thomas. They are one of the reasons I like spending time on Able2know. In this particular discussion, there is no real contentious issue-- it is an interesting intellectual discussion and nothing more. You may have noticed that I have avoided the tangents about specific religions or religious figures-- this is because they are not that interesting to me.

I respect the intellectual capacities of everyone in this discussion. If I didn't, then why would I waste my time having an intellectual debate with them?

Do you think you could you make a contribution to the discussion without personal attacks?

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

And it is only religion which has created the moral values of Thomas and Setanta and fresco. They indulge a twee conceit that they would have the same moral values had there been no Christianity.

So what moral values would we have, had there been no religion?

1 Reply

@Xenoche,

Quote:

And it is only religion which has created the moral values of Thomas and Setanta and fresco. They indulge a twee conceit that they would have the same moral values had there been no Christianity

.

Spendius indulges in the twee conceit that "religion" is a priori to social control mechanisms, when it is merely an appendage of them. The fact that Christians attempt to imbue their "moral code" with "divine authority" or "guidance" is merely an attempt to "protect themselves" from the concept of relativistic development of such codes with respect to the evolution of societal groups.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

ebrown p, I think an alternative way to phrase joefromchicago's challenge to your moral relativism is to ask: Why are you not a nihilist? What makes you think there's any morality at all? Why don you think moral convictions are entirely unfounded and a complete waste of time? I don't think joefromchicago would have any objection left if that was your view.

That's correct. I can't really find any basis to refute someone's contention that there is no such thing as morality, except perhaps that person's inevitable inconsistencies with regard to his/her own adherence to a moral code. David Hume asserted that morality was little more than custom or social convention -- a very useful social convention, no doubt, but not different in kind. If that were ebrown's position, I'd have no problem with it, although he might want to explain why he thinks he is bound by this weak version of morality.

As a general matter, though, I don't think ebrown has spent much time thinking about this subject, and he has all-but admitted that he's not up to the intellectual challenges that it presents. Perhaps that is why he evidently finds it so difficult to respond to my posts.

2 Replies

@ebrown p,

ebrown p wrote:

A key part of the Judeo/Christian creation narrative is the phrase "and God saw that it was good"-- there was a deity there to ascribe some moral value to natural phenomena.

The phrase "and God saw that it was good" doesn't ascribe moral value to anything. After all, the Bible doesn't say "and God defined it to be good". Rather, it assumes that the readers know what the word "good" means, and notes that what God saw met the standard.

ebrown p wrote:

And this is the problem-- without religion, there is no way objectively to judge between natural phenomenon. Who is to say that one naturally occurring phenomenon is good while another is bad? Value judgments are not testable or observable.

1) If I tentatively take this seriously, then there is no way to objectively judge with religion either. You still have to pick your religion.

2) Here's another statement that is not observable or testable: "The shortest connection between any two points in space is always a straight line". And that is not a value judgment. The statements "suffering is bad" and "happiness is good" are no less testable, an no more religious, then Euclid's First Axiom. If the claim that "happiness is good" is a religious affirmation, so are Euclid's axioms.

So, by all means, be a pedant if you want, go ahead and call my utilitarianism a religion. But if you do, please be consequent. The next time you meet me in a science thread, I want you to call me a Euclidian Geometrist, and to point out that my judgments about math are not absolutely true. At best, they are true relative to my religion of Euclidian Geometrism.

0 Replies

@ebrown p,

Quote:

Spendius, you aren't helping any case you think I am making.

You quite easily might have your respectful intellectual discussions with Thomas over the phone, by e-mail, surface mail, telegram, ham radio or video link.

You choose to have it in public where there are people, some young, reading it. It is thus justifiable that other points of view are raised if only in order that the two viewpoints expressed are not thought to be the only viewpoints possible.

What you call "personal attacks" are nothing but the obvious suggestion that there are motives behind the attacks on the Christian religion which are not apparent to viewers here and that the so called intellectual nature of the discussion is fraudulent. Intellectual arguments can be cobbled together on almost any matter relating to these issues. fresco is an expert at it.

As they are all, by now, so well known that they might well be termed hackneyed, it is of much more interest to tease out the reasons why one particular argument has been chosen in which to fly the ego and the reason why sufficient emotional energy has become attached to it to cause recourse to such things as Ignore buttons, door slammings and pullings out of the tongue, all of which exist at the counter-pole of true intellectual debates.

As the original energy source of the emotional attachment is likely to be in early life, being frightened of black robes, say, it can easily become sublimated as the emotion becomes fixated on one or other of the various sophistries which can serve the purpose required and on to the fear of the chosen sophistry being undermined or even demolished leading to a loss of self esteem and to esteem generally when a large number of others have been a witness to its emphatic presentation.

I described on one thread how a friend of mine became a life long communist as a result of finding a hammer and sickle badge in the mud whilst playing rugby. And I only discovered how that happened after a few years arguing politics with him in the pub. Needless to say he is now a traditional Tory.

1 Reply

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

You choose to have it in public where there are people, some young, reading it. It is thus justifiable that other points of view are raised if only in order that the two viewpoints expressed are not thought to be the only viewpoints possible.

Unlike ebrown p,

I don't say you're treating me unkind
You could've done better but, I don't mind
You're just kind of wasting my precious time
But don't think twice, it's alright.

I hope that clarifies it.

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

Quote:

As a general matter, though, I don't think ebrown has spent much time thinking about this subject, and he has all-but admitted that he's not up to the intellectual challenges that it presents. Perhaps that is why he evidently finds it so difficult to respond to my posts.

Geez Joe, I am sorry if I have hurt your feelings. I have though a lot of time thinking about the subject and I haven't made any such admission.

Quote:

That's correct. I can't really find any basis to refute someone's contention that there is no such thing as morality, except perhaps that person's inevitable inconsistencies with regard to his/her own adherence to a moral code. David Hume asserted that morality was little more than custom or social convention -- a very useful social convention, no doubt, but not different in kind

You didn't read my posts -- nowhere do I say there is no such thing as morality.

It is clear that human beings evolved with the capacity to think in terms of morality... we have consciences and passions and a sense of fairness. Yet, different societies at different have developed different moral systems that vary greatly on specifics.

In this way morality is like language. We are born with a unique capacity to learn a language... but the specifics of this language are dependent on the culture we happen to be born into.

Quote:

If that were ebrown's position, I'd have no problem with it, although he might want to explain why he thinks he is bound by this weak version of morality.

This is a fair question (ignoring the tone for sake of the discussion).

My sense of morality is a part of my identity. It makes up who I am as an individual. To me it is quite real. This is understandable seeing as I am a human being who is part of the United States around the turn of the second millenium.

Let's look at the different levels of this.

I am a primate. Primates evolved with a brain with specific neural pathways tuned to help me live in a social group-- these include pleasure pathways for some behaviors and displeasure pathways for other behavior. The electrochemical pathways that make up the biology of my brain have a lot to do with how I act. There is a lot of parallels between social interactions of humans with social interactions of other primates.

Of course these are electrochemical reactions in brain don't carry with it any intrinsic good or evil other than that they were selected from random mutation for survival value.

Human beings have evolved a with the capacity for symbolic thought. We have developed neural pathways that seek to find meaning and symbolism. Again, symbolic thought has survival value for our specific species, but there is no reason to attach intrinsic good or evil to it and very successful species seem to do just fine without.

Since humans want to look for meaning and symbolism in everything, it makes sense that these "moral pathways" (which in primates are simply pleasure/pain) become full blown symbolic moral understandings.

I was born in the United States to politically liberal parents. As a child I was brought along to parts of the civil rights movement. As an American, it is natural that liberty is part of my core value system. From my unique background I developed a strong belief in human rights. I instinctively put a very high moral value on subjective values like justice.

I have very strong moral values that I live by and hold to simply because that is who I am. My specific set of moral values is understanding given my culture and my upbringing-- but having some set of moral values is an important part of human nature. We evolved this way as social creatures with the ability for symbolic thought.

It is a fallacy to suggest that a person who doesn't believe in absolute truth can't be a moral person.

1 Reply

@fresco,

Quote:

Spendius indulges in the twee conceit that "religion" is a priori to social control mechanisms, when it is merely an appendage of them.

Not in the least. I see religion as an efficient social control mechanism and particularly the Christian religion. Of course it is an appendage. I consider that it amounts to a personal attack to assert that I am unaware of the other methods of social control.

I even explained this very day that dogma derives from utility. So how can I be accused, except maybe by someone who can't read properly, of thinking that religion is a priori to social control mechanisms. I took time to explain the very opposite in order that posters here would cease being so naif, possibly deliberately so, as to proceed as if the dogmas came first when they didn't.

Quote:

The fact that Christians attempt to imbue their "moral code" with "divine authority" or "guidance" is merely an attempt to "protect themselves" from the concept of relativistic development of such codes with respect to the evolution of societal groups.

And again-- I took time to explain that the "divine authority" is for the purpose of giving force to the strictures which are derived from utility and especially the utility of the successful evolution of the society which employs both methods. The one working out what is necessary for the success of the group and the other to make it stick at a low cost compared with other methods from the past. Surgical interventions, implants in the brain and pharmaceuticals may be more efficient I will admit.

It has nothing to do with protecting anything other than the society built upon the utility strictures. It is actually the result of an advance in relativistic development of codes with respect to the evolution of societal groups.

Once again the smear of fear is employed

Is that plain enough fresco?

Atheist's have the problem of finding new codes which serve the same function and without a divine authority to make them stick they have a need to show an alternative or admit they haven't one they dare expose. All this other stuff is a mere smokescreen, a blizzard, to avoid mentioning that problem. Such is dilettantism.

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

Quote:

Perhaps that is why he evidently finds it so difficult to respond to my posts.

One wonders why Joe and others avoid responding to my posts. Perhaps they are convinced by dys's powerful argument that they are twaddle and are not even read.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Edit. Sorry.

0 Replies

@ebrown p,

ebrown p wrote:

Geez Joe, I am sorry if I have hurt your feelings.

I assure you my feeling remain undamaged.

ebrown p wrote:

You didn't read my posts -- nowhere do I say there is no such thing as morality.

Well then, you obviously didn't read mine: nowhere do I say that you don't believe that there's such a thing as morality. Indeed, that was my entire point.

ebrown p wrote:

It is clear that human beings evolved with the capacity to think in terms of morality... we have consciences and passions and a sense of fairness. Yet, different societies at different have developed different moral systems that vary greatly on specifics.

In this way morality is like language. We are born with a unique capacity to learn a language... but the specifics of this language are dependent on the culture we happen to be born into.

That's an analogy that only goes so far. It may very well be true that we all have an innate capacity to be moral, just as we have an innate capacity to use language, but then no one asserts that acting linguistically has any kind of moral character. In other words, while no one seriously thinks that one language is "better" than another, morality requires us to consider that some actions are "good" and others are "bad." Morality, therefore, deals in judgments of "better" and "worse" or "good" and "bad," whereas language doesn't. Consequently, even if we are born into our morality in the same way that we are born into our language, that still doesn't mean that no morality is "better" than another.

ebrown p wrote:

This is a fair question (ignoring the tone for sake of the discussion).

My sense of morality is a part of my identity. It makes up who I am as an individual. To me it is quite real. This is understandable seeing as I am a human being who is part of the United States around the turn of the second millenium.

That may very well be true as well, but then it's largely irrelevant to the question. You may really, really believe in your own version of morality, but it will always be just your version of morality, and if you are your own moral arbiter, there's nothing preventing you from doing whatever you want and calling it "moral." If you restrain yourself from acting on your impulses and in following some sort of internalized moral code, that's strictly your own affair -- in that instance, your morality would be more akin to religious mysticism than anything else. And if you adhere to a moral code in order to function in society, then you're merely acting on the basis of a prudential calculus. That's not morality.

ebrown p wrote:

I have very strong moral values that I live by and hold to simply because that is who I am. My specific set of moral values is understanding given my culture and my upbringing-- but having some set of moral values is an important part of human nature. We evolved this way as social creatures with the ability for symbolic thought.

If you have moral values because "that's who you are," then your morality is a personal attribute, nothing more. It's like eye color or height or right-handedness. I'm not sure why you'd place more importance on the attribute of morality than you'd place on any other personal attribute, but that's entirely your business.

ebrown p wrote:

It is a fallacy to suggest that a person who doesn't believe in absolute truth can't be a moral person.

Be sure to tell that to somebody who has actually made that argument.

2 Replies

@joefromchicago,

Quote:

while no one seriously thinks that one language is "better" than another,

I do and I have read the works of others who do. And English is being selected in by the whole world. It is taught in the schools and colleges, often it is mandatory, in nearly all countries of the world. Most elites speak it fluently.

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

Joe, I want to respond to your post. I don't know what to say other then... Yep, you get what I am saying.

You have characterized my arguments pretty well-- except for the part saying morality is just a personal attribute might be a bit of an overstatement of my position. I believe it is tied to personal and cultural identity... but this is probably a minor point.

You also make it clear you disagree with my position-- but you don't really explain why? Let me pick out a key point.

Quote:

Consequently, even if we are born into our morality in the same way that we are born into our language, that still doesn't mean that no morality is "better" than another.

This is truly the crux of the matter-- how do we judge which of two systems of morality from two cultural contexts is better?

It seems to me that when confronted with conflicting ideas from two different cultures. any human being is going to side with their own culture almost all of the time.

Your judgment is based on your culture. I haven't seen anyone who believes in a absolute system of morality propose a way around this problem.

2 Replies

Problems with Atheism

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know