'GOD CONTROLS EVERYTHING"
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
@Travis
"Seems to me that you are shuttling in more unjustifiable propositions to prop up the original. Not only are we now supposed to operate under a framework in which a god exists, but now it must also must be all knowing or all powerful, not to mention having to accept that it is a moral being….”
You are wrong. When the initial proposition is made that “God is immoral because of all the killing and other stuffs he is doing” it is obvious that the reference is to the Abrahamic God. The god of Spinoza or a deistic God does not interfere in our affairs at all. Therefore, the premise is Abrahamic God… not just any God. Therefore, the whole discussion starts from the notion that God (in the conception of the Abrahamic faith) is immoral because of the bad things that he is doing. Though it was not spelt out, this was understood. I am just spelling it out here.
Are you saying that you are talking about a deistic god? Then the answer is simple. God is not doing any of these bad things. Period.
"Well, that would be a mean feat, considering that there are still people who believe the world to be flat. For something to be objective, it DOESN'T have to be agreed on by all, it only needs to be independent.”
I did not say that the moral concept has to be agreed universally for it to be objective. I am only saying that the logical reasons presented should be verifiable by all – meaning anyone who is seeking to verify it. I cannot say the earth is flat and not give any logical explanation to it that can be checked out by another person, and yet claim it is objective. But yes, there can be no universal agreement on anything… objective or otherwise.
“The rules of Chess and the standard metric are not objective because they are universal, because they aren't, they are objective because they do not rely solely on individual players or measures. Likewise, an objective morality need not be universal, but merely not rely on individual participants in society. You are, in fact, conflating objectivity and universality. EXACTLY as I suspected...”
The rules of chess are objective because there is a logic to it that can be agreed upon by both players. If there was no logical reason to the rules, then the game wouldn’t be possible. This is all that I mean when I say that objective reasoning should have a logic that should be verifiable by all. I don’t mean universality at all. Thanks for the example. It helped me explain my position more clearly.
“This is nothing if not a special form of an argumentum ad populum, even if EVERYONE agreed about something, that would not make it objective.”
Answered above.
"Depends on what objectives you use. If you start with the generally accepted standard of reciprocity, yes.”
Reciprocity? Are you saying that if I give charity to the poor… I will benefit in some way from the society? On the contrary, I see that people who are bad, who cheat others and make millions… they are born with silver spoons and die with golden spoons. I don’t see their wickedness being reciprocated at all. And on the other hand, I see the honest, charitable person living in poverty and dying in horrible situations. Where is the principle of reciprocity? In this thread, you said that the dropping of atom bombs is immoral. What consequences did those people who did that horrible crime face? Not even a court trial.
"Other animals are not sentient, nor moral agents, so killing them is not the same as killing something capable of both.”
This is exactly what I mean by intuitive judgments. Even if I pretend to agree with you on the point that animals are non-sentient, winking at the fact that I see animals expressing kindness to their young ones, nobody can deny the fact that animals feel pain? What makes you think it’s okay to inflict paint to an animal (even if you think it lacks emotions and moral agency). By that logic… would you think it’s okay to kill a new born baby (as it’s sentient senses are yet not developed and it’s got no moral agency too). By the way, many people kill new born girl babies as they are considered a burden in India. By your logic they are not immoral.
"Which is true, it a strict sense. If you make a society where murder is legal and normal, the chances of being killed go up drastically. If you make one were murder is considered moral, then the chances get even closer to 1. If I start from the basic objective that humans should do as much good and as little harm as possible, it is rather easy to see that murder is NOT the right means for achieving that objective.”
Let me start from the last part of your objective “humans should do as much good and as little harm”… here you seem to have some a priori assumptions on good and harm.
Moving on. According to this argument, you are saying that in the welfare of the group, rests individual welfare. Therefore, you must conform to the rules of the society that provides greater good (whatever that means) to all. So far so good. But what if my individual interest collides with group interest. Suddenly, I find myself in a position where I have no objective reason to abide by societal rules, because following it will only lead to my destruction. Here is an example:
Consider, I am a wealthy man… and suddenly I find this half brother who has come with a claim on my assets. If I let him move to legal proceedings, I am sure to lose all my assets and become a pauper, based on my father’s will. When my personal life is on the brink of total destruction… what would I care about the good of the society. Clearly the argument of ‘group good’ does not work in this scenario.
"I am not so sure. While we had no reason to believe they had weapons of the same type or grade, we actually seemed to expect some kind of response other than surrender, so we did fear some kind of retaliation and did it anyway.”
The whole idea of nuclear weapons is that of deterrence, which means nobody will dare to attack you if you have it. This clear goes against your ideas – unless these foreign policy experts are wrong.
“Now, I am not in the camp that thinks this particular action, by my own country, was moral. Nor were many other people, after seeing the devastation and destruction left behind, which is part of the reason we never used them again.”
Well… that’s arguable. There are many reasons why you didn’t use it again. Because there were other nuclear powers in the world… and then suddenly there was a deterrent factor. Especially, with sovient Russia breathing down your neck with their stockpiles.
"As to why we might be able to call it immoral, well we are capable of understanding that our actions have consequences, and those consequences are not limited to just ourselves. Through an understanding of how our actions affect others, and an innate sense of empathy and fairness (which most of us possess), we can reach moral conclusions about our actions and others.”
“innate sense of empathy”… doesn’t sound like parameters for objectivity. Your innate sense of empathy and fairness etc… are all a result of how your mind gets mapped in your upbringing. That’s the reason that you feel it’s alright to kill animals. If you had been brought up in a caste in India, who are strictly against non-vegetarianism, you would be calling it cruel, and shudder at the thought of putting knife to the throat of an innocent animal.
"Generally, the same methods we use when applying law.”
You mean the ‘innate empathy’? That’s not objective at all, is it? And I guess you are arguing that morality is objective in this thread.
“No, it is still relevant, because we never agreed to assume the properties of the fictitious god, as that would be poor even for a thought experiment.”
I think I have explained this above. We have agreed – even if we did not spell it out – that we are discussing the Abrahamic god.
“You will probably have to, I haven't ever read the whole thing, nor the numerous Hadiths(sp?) that go along with it. From what I understand, it is more than just the one book, but a slew of religious writings external to it as well. You will probably have to correct me if I am misinformed on that, though my inability to understand Arabic will probably be a liability in the discussion.”
I would be glad to help you out there. More on it when we actually get to those points.
“However, if their entire argument hinges on the presumption of greater good unknown to us, one first has to establish it. I would think that would be the natural course.”
Agreed. When we get to the discussion on why I believe in a moral god and so on… I will have to explain it to you.
"Regardless, I could NOT ask you to do something without explaining why, and then expect you to simply agree because I was smarter than you. It doesn't work that way. Just because another person or being is smarter, doesn't make them more moral, or even correct.”
I can agree with that. But we are not just talking about someone smarter than you… but it’s someone with absolute knowledge in the literal sense. So, it’s no comparison at all. Secondly, about his morality… I would like to hear from you what measuring tools you have to assess morality. So, far all that you gave seem to be nothing more than mere intuitions and subjectivity. While, they are not even good to measure your fellow human being’s morality… how can you measure god’s.
"Why not? Do you think we have made no progress in the last few thousand years?”
If you are measuring human knowledge between now and a 1000 years ago… yes we have advanced by leaps. But that would still be extremely negligible when compared to the absolute knowledge of god.
"Another assertion that you cannot possibly justify, you have simply assumed such for little reason.”
This is not an assertion… this is from the premise of the initial platform – we are discussing the Abrahamic God” here. If that’s the case, then his knowledge is so supreme and absolute, that any progress we make will be negligible.
"Then he isn't omniscient, or he would know that there is a need to explain such things, or thinking beings wouldn't do them.”
It is by using our ability to think that we arrive at the conclusion that our knowledge is limited. In fact science itself rests on this premise that the things we can know are limited.
"Nope. Just because a being is omniscient does not automatically justify trust in it. It may not be trustworthy, or may not have your best interests in mind, so no.”
Agreed. That’s why it warrants a further discussion on the logic behind god belief.
"Pretty much the same thing. "Do this thing because someone smarter told you to!"
Rather it should be worded like this “Consider this thing because it comes from the omniscient.” That’s why belief is not to be thrusted upon anyone.
We were made to do more than follow the orders of those we think are superior, and that is a good thing. We firmly established that "just doing what you are told" is not a justifiable defense, while we were trying Nazi war criminals, so no.
“Well, to explain the reference, god is the illusion and not the people controlling it. In this case, the man behind the curtain would be the people who claim that god gave them laws, and that those laws are "good".
What is behind the curtain is the unseen. That’s why I thought the man behind the curtain should be god. IN any case, we can study the reasons the man behind the curtain (whoever it is) gives to follow what is being said. If it makes sense, we can take it. Or we can leave it.
"No, actually. If the moral reasons are not provided, and the law appears immoral, then it is necessary to REJECT the law until you can provide a sound reason as to its value.”
However, if you realize that there is no objective way to analyze morality, then there is really no way to judge any system of morality. In that case, the only other option is to study the source and how reliable his/its knowledge is.
"You are wrong. When the initial proposition is made that “God is immoral because of all the killing and other stuffs he is doing” it is obvious that the reference is to the Abrahamic God. The god of Spinoza or a deistic God does not interfere in our affairs at all. Therefore, the premise is Abrahamic God… not just any God. Therefore, the whole discussion starts from the notion that God (in the conception of the Abrahamic faith) is immoral because of the bad things that he is doing. Though it was not spelt out, this was understood. I am just spelling it out here."
Well, I went back and read the original proposition and read it as “God is immoral because of all the killing and other stuffs he is ALLOWING.” The original poster clearly stated that if one believed that "God controls everything" then he is effectively responsible for all of it, either through action or inaction. He also was careful to example natural instances, and not ones that are likely caused by human intervention. Seems to me that it is wholly compatible to most concepts of god.
"Are you saying that you are talking about a deistic god? Then the answer is simple. God is not doing any of these bad things. Period."
In my state we have a tort law called "duty to rescue", whereby there are circumstances in which a party can be held liable for failing to come to the rescue of another party in peril. In other words, we can be sued for failing to rescue someone. While we may be able to argue the ethical practicality of said law, you would surely see that god could be held liable for failing to act in some circumstances under this concept. Surely you would recognize that failing to prevent an easily avoidable tragedy could be seen as immoral by many parties.
"I did not say that the moral concept has to be agreed universally for it to be objective. I am only saying that the logical reasons presented should be verifiable by all – meaning anyone who is seeking to verify it."
Good, as long as we reject that it needs to be universally accepted, than we are zeroing in on what we mean by 'objective'. However, it should also be recognized that logical reasons are not universally verifiable, as synthetic propositions can be rejected. In the end, not all logically verifiable information is correct, as logic is about consistency and coherence. As long as a conclusion follows naturally from one or more premises, it is logical, no matter how false the premise may be.
We need just a bit more than logic to scratch at the truth, we also need true premises, which require making as FEW assumptions as possible.
"I cannot say the earth is flat and not give any logical explanation to it that can be checked out by another person, and yet claim it is objective."
There were arguments, and still are, that are being used to prop up this feeble position. They are incorrect, but a few millennia ago we did not have either the tools or ability to falsify them. Are you stating that a few millennia ago, before we knew better, a flat Earth should have been considered objective truth?
"But yes, there can be no universal agreement on anything… objective or otherwise."
This is mainly what forces people into relativism, they see no way to bridge the gap with so many different viewpoints out there. However, in the end, we already have an objective in the sense you alluded to, one as we have enshrined it in law. It is no longer a matter of an individuals perspective, there is a code that anyone who wishes to may go and verify for themselves.
"The rules of chess are objective because there is a logic to it that can be agreed upon by both players. If there was no logical reason to the rules, then the game wouldn’t be possible."
Not really, there are no good logical arguments as to why a rook does not move like a knight and vice versa. It is simply how the game was formed.
"This is all that I mean when I say that objective reasoning should have a logic that should be verifiable by all. I don’t mean universality at all. Thanks for the example. It helped me explain my position more clearly."
Perhaps.
"Reciprocity? Are you saying that if I give charity to the poor… I will benefit in some way from the society?"
Not directly. Reciprocity is a concept in social psychology that refers to responding to a positive action with another positive action, or a negative action with another negative action. As a social construct, reciprocity means that if you are friendly to people, those people are frequently much more friendly and cooperative with you and others. It even overwhelms even the results that are predicted by the self-interest model; conversely, in response to hostile actions they are frequently much more nasty and even brutal, even toward others when the initial stimulus was unsolicited.
Ergo, if you are nice to people, other people are more likely to be nicer to you. It is a "Ripples from a pebble touch the whole lake" kind of thing.
"On the contrary, I see that people who are bad, who cheat others and make millions… they are born with silver spoons and die with golden spoons."
I never said it would make anyone poor.
"I don’t see their wickedness being reciprocated at all."
They are often hated by many people, that is reciprocation in action.
"And on the other hand, I see the honest, charitable person living in poverty and dying in horrible situations."
I never said that it would make you rich or disaster-proof, it isn't Karma. These people are often loved by everyone around them, and while that may not seem like much to you, I value it.
"Where is the principle of reciprocity?"
Wow, I didn't think the concept was so difficult to understand...
"In this thread, you said that the dropping of atom bombs is immoral. What consequences did those people who did that horrible crime face?"
A cold war. That is the consequence that America, as a nation, suffered for decades.
"Not even a court trial."
The 1963 Tokyo District Court Judgment in Shimoda vs. The State declared that the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was illegal. In the opinion of the Court, the act of dropping an atomic bomb on cities was at the time governed by international law found in the Hague Convention of 1907 IV – The Laws and Customs of War on Land and IX – Bombardment by Naval Forces in Time of War, and the Hague Draft Rules of Air Warfare of 1922–1923 (which were never adopted) and was therefore “an illegal act of hostilities under international law as it existed at that time, as an indiscriminate bombardment of undefended cities.” Article 25 of The Hague Convention IV states that ‘the attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings which are undefended is prohibited.”
The Tokyo Court had ruled that the attacks were not justified by “military necessity,” a concept governed by several constraints: an attack or action must be intended to help in the military defeat of the enemy, it must be an attack on a military objective, and the harm caused to civilians or civilian property must be proportional and not excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated. An argument against illegality is that Hiroshima was indeed a military objective, and that detonating the bomb it helped in the defeat of Japan by forcing it to surrender. But this ignores the fact that this military target was surrounded by a civilian population, upon which disproportionate harm was inflicted.
In the trial of Thiele and Steinert, the US Military Commission held that: “Article 22 of the Hague Regulations stipulates distinctly that the right of belligerents to adopt means of injuring the enemy is not unlimited, and this rule does not lose its binding force in a case of necessity. What may be ignored in the case of military necessity are not the laws of war, but only the usages of war.” In the Hostages case in 1948, the Nuremberg Tribunal recognised that the principle of proportionality applied in 1945, ruling that the degree of retaliation against civilians by forces under the defendants command were criminal due their disproportionate nature: “Military necessity permits a belligerent, subject to the laws of war, to apply any amount and kind of force to compel the complete submission of the enemy with the least possible expenditure of time, life, and money.”
Although an argument can be made that in the WWII war crimes trials the concept of military necessity was only considered in connection with the following two categories of offences: (a) the treatment of prisoners of war and unarmed enemy persons, and (b) the deportation and devastation of property in occupied enemy territory, this is so because of the scope of the factual matters that were considered at Nuremberg, and there does not appear to be a legal basis to conclude that the principle of proportionality would not have also extended to the devastation of property in non-occupied enemy territory.
In the 2007 judgment, the International People's Tribunal adopted the Shimoda finding, and went on to conclude based on customary law and the Nuremberg Principles that the bombing attacks were deliberate attacks on unprotected cities, not justified by military necessity, causing the unnecessary and excessive deaths of civilians and thereby constituted war crimes.
It may still happen, but at the rate it is currently progressing, the pilots will be long dead by the time it happens.
"This is exactly what I mean by intuitive judgments. Even if I pretend to agree with you on the point that animals are non-sentient, winking at the fact that I see animals expressing kindness to their young ones, nobody can deny the fact that animals feel pain?"
We inflict pain on our own children as a form of punishment, is that immoral?
"What makes you think it’s okay to inflict paint to an animal (even if you think it lacks emotions and moral agency)."
I had my cat spayed, I am sure that hurt, was that immoral?
"By that logic… would you think it’s okay to kill a new born baby (as it’s sentient senses are yet not developed and it’s got no moral agency too)."
A. Circumcision, we routinely perpetrate pain on male children.
B. A being that has the capacity for both, yet has not developed it yet, is not the same as a being that never will. Plus, we are consider the value of humans as being greater than that of other animals, for plethora of reasons, some objective and some subjective.
"By the way, many people kill new born girl babies as they are considered a burden in India. By your logic they are not immoral."
Nope, comparing apples to oranges doesn't really work.
"Let me start from the last part of your objective “humans should do as much good and as little harm”… here you seem to have some a priori assumptions on good and harm."
REALLY? You honestly believe we have no objective means to determine if something is of benefit or harm to us?
"Moving on. According to this argument, you are saying that in the welfare of the group, rests individual welfare."
No, I am saying that the welfare of the group depends on the welfare of individuals, and vice versa. You cannot go too far either direction without disturbing the balance.
"But what if my individual interest collides with group interest."
That is when we look to the constitution and laws. Both individuals and society has rights and protections under the law, and provisions have been made to deal with such conflicts, whether we agree with them or not. Just because you do not agree with a moral does not make it automatically immoral, and if you do not agree with the law that does not mean that it isn't the law.
"Suddenly, I find myself in a position where I have no objective reason to abide by societal rules, because following it will only lead to my destruction."
Not following it will likely lead to your utter destruction. If you kill your half-brother, you will likely lose both your wealth and your freedom, possibly even your life.
"The whole idea of nuclear weapons is that of deterrence, which means nobody will dare to attack you if you have it. This clear goes against your ideas – unless these foreign policy experts are wrong."
Part of the reason the decision was made was because of the Japanese code of bushido—'the way of the warrior'—was deeply ingrained. The concept of Yamato-damashii equipped each soldier with a strict code: never be captured, never break down, and never surrender. Surrender was dishonorable. Each soldier was trained to fight to the death and was expected to die before suffering dishonor. Defeated Japanese leaders preferred to take their own lives in the painful samurai ritual of seppuku (hara kiri). Warriors who surrendered were not deemed worthy of regard or respect, which lead to Kamikaze pilots and Banzai charges, suicide tactics by 'disposable' units used to inflict maximum casualties.
American leaders were convinced that Japanese leaders were willing to die rather than surrender, Japanese militarism was aggravated by the Great Depression, and had resulted in countless assassinations of reformers attempting to check military power. This created an environment in which opposition to war was a much riskier endeavor. The intercepts of Japanese Imperial Army and Navy messages disclosed without exception that Japan's armed forces were determined to fight a final Armageddon battle in the homeland against an Allied invasion. The Japanese called this strategy Ketsu Go (Operation Decisive).
It was founded on the premise that American morale was brittle and could be shattered by heavy losses in the initial invasion. American politicians would then gladly negotiate an end to the war far more generous than unconditional surrender. Unfortunately for them, Truman had other plans. The release on August,6 1945 at 08:15 (Hiroshima time) went as planned, and the Little Boy containing about 64 kg (141 lb) of uranium-235 took 44.4 seconds to fall from the aircraft flying at about 31,000 feet (9,400 m) to a detonation height of about 1,900 feet (580 m) above the city.
After the bombing, Truman issued a statement announcing the use of the new weapon. He stated, "We may be grateful to Providence" that the German atomic bomb project had failed, and that the United States and its allies had "spent two billion dollars on the greatest scientific gamble in history—and won." Truman then warned Japan: "If they do not now accept our terms, they may expect a rain of ruin from the air, the like of which has never been seen on this earth. Behind this air attack will follow sea and land forces in such numbers and power as they have not yet seen and with the fighting skill of which they are already well aware."
The Japanese government did not react. Emperor Hirohito, the government, and the war council considered four conditions for surrender: the preservation of the kokutai (Imperial institution and national polity), assumption by the Imperial Headquarters of responsibility for disarmament and demobilization, no occupation of the Japanese Home Islands, Korea, or Formosa, and delegation of the punishment of war criminals to the Japanese government.
On August 7, a day after Hiroshima was destroyed, Dr. Yoshio Nishina and other atomic physicists arrived at the city, and carefully examined the damage. They then went back to Tokyo and told the cabinet that Hiroshima was indeed destroyed by an atomic bomb. Admiral Soemu Toyoda, the Chief of the Naval General Staff, estimated that no more than one or two additional bombs could be readied, so they decided to endure the remaining attacks, acknowledging "there would be more destruction but the war would go on."
American Magic codebreakers intercepted the cabinet's messages. That is the entire reason the bomb was dropped on Nagasaki on August, 9th of the same year.
So, no, we were NOT all that sure that the bomb would end the war.
"Well… that’s arguable. There are many reasons why you didn’t use it again. Because there were other nuclear powers in the world… and then suddenly there was a deterrent factor. Especially, with sovient Russia breathing down your neck with their stockpiles."
"As American Christians, we are deeply penitent for the irresponsible use already made of the atomic bomb. We are agreed that, whatever be one's judgment of the war in principle, the surprise bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are morally indefensible."
"Atomic Warfare and the Christian Faith", Federal Council of Churches - 1946
Early critics of the bombings were Albert Einstein, Eugene Wigner and Leó Szilárd, who had together spurred the first bomb research in 1939 with a jointly written letter to President Roosevelt. Szilárd, who had gone on to play a major role in the Manhattan Project, argued:
"Let me say only this much to the moral issue involved: Suppose Germany had developed two bombs before we had any bombs. And suppose Germany had dropped one bomb, say, on Rochester and the other on Buffalo, and then having run out of bombs she would have lost the war. Can anyone doubt that we would then have defined the dropping of atomic bombs on cities as a war crime, and that we would have sentenced the Germans who were guilty of this crime to death at Nuremberg and hanged them?"
The cenotaph at the Hiroshima Peace Park is inscribed with the sentence: "Let all the souls here rest in peace; this mistake shall not be repeated."
A number of scientists who worked on the bomb were against its use. Led by Dr. James Franck, seven scientists submitted a report to the Interim Committee (which advised the President) in May 1945, saying:
If the United States were to be the first to release this new means of indiscriminate destruction upon mankind, she would sacrifice public support throughout the world, precipitate the race for armaments, and prejudice the possibility of reaching an international agreement on the future control of such weapons.
"“innate sense of empathy”… doesn’t sound like parameters for objectivity."
Depends on if empathy is verifiable, doesn't it?
"Your innate sense of empathy and fairness etc… are all a result of how your mind gets mapped in your upbringing."
Nope.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/10/111007161636.htm
"That’s the reason that you feel it’s alright to kill animals. If you had been brought up in a caste in India, who are strictly against non-vegetarianism, you would be calling it cruel, and shudder at the thought of putting knife to the throat of an innocent animal."
Perhaps, I can't say for sure, but I was brought up in a caste in America that are strictly devoted to god; yet here we are.
"You mean the ‘innate empathy’? That’s not objective at all, is it? And I guess you are arguing that morality is objective in this thread."
No. I mean that we determine the morality of an action based on intent and consequence. That is why we have degrees of theft, and don't simply chop off the hand of everyone no matter what they were stealing. Some asshole stealing a big screen television is much different than a child stealing food to live.
"I think I have explained this above. We have agreed..."
I'll stop you there, no, we didn't.
"I would be glad to help you out there. More on it when we actually get to those points."
(Thumbs up)
"Agreed. When we get to the discussion on why I believe in a moral god and so on… I will have to explain it to you."
Agreed.
"I can agree with that. But we are not just talking about someone smarter than you… but it’s someone with absolute knowledge in the literal sense. So, it’s no comparison at all."
Actually, it is. If someone tells you to do something for a specific outcome, but refuses to elaborate on that outcome, you have no reason to assume it is in your best interest.
"Secondly, about his morality… I would like to hear from you what measuring tools you have to assess morality."
Assessing our actions and the consequences they have on others, within the confines of what we KNOW to be either beneficial or harmful.
"So, far all that you gave seem to be nothing more than mere intuitions and subjectivity."
Really...
"While, they are not even good to measure your fellow human being’s morality… how can you measure god’s."
Why would I measure your supposed god any different than I would Sauron?
"If you are measuring human knowledge between now and a 1000 years ago… yes we have advanced by leaps. But that would still be extremely negligible when compared to the absolute knowledge of god."
Can you prove that?
"This is not an assertion… this is from the premise of the initial platform – we are discussing the Abrahamic God” here."
Again with the appeal to an agreement we never had.
"It is by using our ability to think that we arrive at the conclusion that our knowledge is limited. In fact science itself rests on this premise that the things we can know are limited."
True, and it is also based on the premise that we shouldn't do extremely dangerous or harmful things we don't know the consequences of. So, it doesn't support your claim.
"Rather it should be worded like this “Consider this thing because it comes from the omniscient.” That’s why belief is not to be thrusted upon anyone."
We are not simply being asked to consider it, we are also being given a bald threat, which changes the philosophical dimensions of the debate quite completely. Thankfully, I have yet no reason to believe in either your god, or his punishment.
"What is behind the curtain is the unseen."
Which isn't god, because he is the first thing trotted out metaphorically speaking. Instead, it is the people using the illusion of a god, for their own designs and purposes.
"That’s why I thought the man behind the curtain should be god. IN any case, we can study the reasons the man behind the curtain (whoever it is) gives to follow what is being said. If it makes sense, we can take it. Or we can leave it."
True, and until the moral precepts of these unseen manipulators are explained, I have no reason to consider them anything but subjective propositions.
"However, if you realize that there is no objective way to analyze morality, then there is really no way to judge any system of morality."
Even without a concrete system, it is possible to make a partial analysis based on the things we can understand, which is much better than the nothing you are proposing.
"In that case, the only other option is to study the source and how reliable his/its knowledge is."
Knowledgeable =/= moral. No matter how reliable the sources knowledge, it doesn't matter if it isn't moral.
@Travis
“Well, I went back and read the original … The original poster clearly stated that if one believed that "God controls everything" then he is … to most concepts of god.”
It’s not any different from what I have been positing. As you rightly pointed out “…if one believed that "God controls everything" then he is effectively responsible for all of it..” This is essentially a monotheistic concept of God (or Abrahamic). God of spinoza or a deistic god is not in control.
"In my state we have a tort law called "duty to rescue". …. Surely you would recognize that failing to prevent an easily avoidable tragedy could be seen as immoral by many parties.
You said this as response to my argument that we are essentially talking about an Abrahamic god and not the god of spinoza. My contention was that if you say that we talking about a general concept of God (not necessarily Abrahamic) then you can simply absolve god from any moral responsibility because other concepts give a very mild version of god, where God just caused the beginning of everything and had no control over them after that. If this is the case, then you have to leave out such a powerless god from any moral responsibility. However, by applying your ‘duty to rescue’ argument… you are essentially agreeing that your contention is against the monotheistic god that controls everything.
In like manner, I find you veering off into irrelevancies in most of your other arguments in the last post. I shall point them out as I go over them.
"We need just a bit more than logic to scratch at the truth, we also need true premises, which require making as FEW assumptions as possible.”
Agreed.
"There were arguments, and still are, that are being used to prop up this feeble position. They are incorrect, but a few millennia ago we did not have either the tools or ability to falsify them. Are you stating that a few millennia ago, before we knew better, a flat Earth should have been considered objective truth?”
I was NOT taking any position on the flat earth theory. I was only trying to say that if those people had a logical way to deduce this theory, then it should have been objective. But as you said, yes, what is objective can be wrong. However, it is better to accept something with an objective basis than something that is from mere intuitions.
.
“This is mainly what forces people into relativism, they see no way to bridge the gap with so many different viewpoints out there. However, in the end, we already have an objective in the sense you alluded to, one as we have enshrined it in law. It is no longer a matter of an individuals perspective, there is a code that anyone who wishes to may go and verify for themselves.”
I need to clarify some things here. Just because there are differences of opinion, I don’t think something should become relative. Einstein could have differed with Heisenberg on scientific postulates. But you can’t dismiss their postulates as foibles in relativism. One has to look into the objective arguments each presents and accept the stronger one. However, if two art critics disagree over the aesthetic appeal of picasso’s paintings… that would be relativism. There is really no way you can say why one should be right, and the other wrong. There is no objectivity in one’s aesthetic sensibilities.
However, if you are saying there is objectivity in morality because something has been enshrined in the law, then firstly, most of the laws in the world have evolved from religious laws, which stems entirely from faith (no objectivity there). Secondly, even the new laws that are hammered out have no logical basis… rather they all stem from intuitions and empathy. I know you have argued later in the thread that empathy is objective, which I shall deal with when I get there. Why is the age of consent 14 in some countries, 16 in some and 18 some others? Why is death sentence legal in some states, and not legal in some other states? Why do different countries have different definitions of what amounts to sexual offence? (Note: All these variations are found in western secular laws… I am not comparing the US with Saudi arabia.)
“Not really, there are no good logical arguments as to why a rook does not move like a knight and vice versa. It is simply how the game was formed.”
That’s not what I mean. The premise in chess is that it’s a game that has certain rules, which apply equally to both players. A player can verify the rules and check for himself to see if there is parity… or if there is anything in it that puts him in a disadvantage. This is can be verified. In that sense, the game of chess can be objectively verified. There is a very strong logic to it.
"Not directly. Reciprocity is a concept in social psychology that refers to responding to a positive action with another positive action, or a negative action with another negative action. ….Ergo, if you are nice to people, other people are more likely to be nicer to you. It is a "Ripples from a pebble touch the whole lake" kind of thing.”
May be your explanation of reciprocity is correct. However, we are missing the basic point here. You brought up ‘reciprocity’ as your logic for morality. As in, what you give others is what you will get in return… therefore, do only those things to others what you would like to be done unto. This may be fine for social niceties. However, when push comes to shove, does it hold any water?
This is the reason I brought up the example of the atom bomb. Did those guys who killed millions of innocents end up in a similar fate? Of course not. Yes, I stand corrected regarding the law suits (thanks for enlightening me on that)… but I invoked court trial to highlight that these people have not suffered anything close to what they inflicted. And that still holds.
Okay, there was some sort of a legal recourse taken, but did any leader get executed or at least face imprisonment. Now, all that you can show is that in return for the colossal butchery, all that these people faced was some harsh words from some courts. Doesn’t sound like reciprocity. It just doesn’t work… that’s the reason cheating and lying are so rampant. Everyone understands that by doing bad things in a smart way… not only will they not face ‘reciprocity’ but can add immensely to their comforts and wellbeing.
"They are often hated by many people, that is reciprocation in action.”
The reciprocation for killing millions is merely hatred? What sort of a ‘reciprocity’ is that? Moreover, even the claim that bad people get hated is only wishful thinking… it’s not objective at all. We have both good and bad people getting hated and loved. India’s prime minister won an overwhelming majority in the recent election… looks like a lot of people love him in india. And he is a person who orchestrated a state-sponsored pogrom in which thousands were killed.
"I never said that it would make you rich or disaster-proof, it isn't Karma. These people are often loved by everyone around them, and while that may not seem like much to you, I value it.”
I was just trying to refute the logic of reciprocity in a general sense. You do good and yet bad things happen to you. And even the idea of being loved, as I demonstrated above, is not objective.
"A cold war. That is the consequence that America, as a nation, suffered for decades.”
I think Sovient Unioin suffered more from the cold war than the US… ultimately the whole state crumbled, with the US coming out victorious. In fact, many nations in the world that were far less evil have suffered far greater than just a cold war. So that’s not a strong justification either.
Finally, we talk of nations as if they are some sort of non-life entities. But nations are ultimately people. When you say a nation suffers, it’s the people who are actually suffering. And often times we find people suffer in very horrible ways for the crimes of their leaders, who would be living off in palaces. These make the argument of ‘reciprocity’ extremely weak.
"….It may still happen, but at the rate it is currently progressing, the pilots will be long dead by the time it happens.”
Thanks for all the information about the trials. There was a lot in them for me to learn. However, it doesn’t undermine my argument very much at all.
"We inflict pain on our own children as a form of punishment, is that immoral?”
You are asking me questions that I should be asking you. Tell me… is that immoral or not? Give me a logical explanation and please show how that same logic applies in the case of inflicting pain on animals. If the logic you use to justify causing pain to children can be applied to animals... then I can agree injuring animals is not Immoral.
"I had my cat spayed, I am sure that hurt, was that immoral?”
Therefore you have already assumed that spaying cats is okay. What makes you think so other than your human-centric worldview?
"A. Circumcision, we routinely perpetrate pain on male children.
B. A being that has the capacity for both, yet has not developed it yet, is not the same as a being that never will. Plus, we are consider the value of humans as being greater than that of other animals, for plethora of reasons, some objective and some subjective.”
A…Once again… are you saying the logic behind giving pain to children is the same as inflicting pain on animals? If yes, please demonstrate how.
B…I don’t want a plethora… just give one objective reason for the moral premise that human life is more precious than animal life?
“Nope, comparing apples to oranges doesn't really work.”
You said the logic for killing animals is that they are non-sentient… going by that logic, this comparison is absolutely valid. Babies are non-sentient… and there are people who practice infanticide in India.
"REALLY? You honestly believe we have no objective means to determine if something is of benefit or harm to us?”
Yes. From a moral perspective. What I mean is, you might be able to say that eating healthy food is of ‘benefit’ to us citing objective reasons. But there is really no way you can show that ‘sharing that food with a poor man’ is of any benefit to us. You tried to justify it by using the principle of reciprocity… which I have shown you doesn’t work.
"No, I am saying that the welfare of the group depends on the welfare of individuals, and vice versa. You cannot go too far either direction without disturbing the balance.”
That was confusing. Can you explain with some examples.
"That is when we look to the constitution and laws. Both individuals and society has rights and protections under the law, and provisions have been made to deal with such conflicts, whether we agree with them or not. Just because you do not agree with a moral does not make it automatically immoral, and if you do not agree with the law that does not mean that it isn't the law.”
You totally missed my point. What I meant was… there could be instances when your personal interest will conflict with the “law”. As in the example of the ‘rich man and his half brother.’ The rich man knows that if he goes to court, he will lose all his money. Therefore, from his perspective, his interests are best served not by abiding with the law, but by breaking it.
"Not following it will likely lead to your utter destruction. If you kill your half-brother, you will likely lose both your wealth and your freedom, possibly even your life.”
We know that when crimes are done smartly, people can get away scot-free. We know these kinds of things happen everywhere and are quite common. In fact, the reason there are so many crimes happening in the world is because people strongly believe they can escape the long arm of the law. I don’t think George Bush would ever lose a wink of sleep over the fact that he might some day have to pay for war crimes against Iraq. Or for that matter 9/11. I don’t know what your position on that issue is… but from the many documentaries I have seen on the subject, I am quite convinced that it was an inside job. But if you don’t agree with it, just leave it. It’s just a side issue to our discussion.
"So, no, we were NOT all that sure that the bomb would end the war.”
Once again, thank you for all that information about the atomic bomb. But I think the underlying arguments still remain… at the end of the day you do agree that it was Immoral.
And regarding your answers to my take on why the bomb was not used again… well, I don’t think I need to strongly refute any of that. While historians could have many different takes on the subject… it’s really not at the heart of this debate. So, I am passing it. But thanks anyways… I at least understand that I need some reading to do on this topic.
When I said” "Your innate sense of empathy and fairness etc… are all a result of how your mind gets mapped in your upbringing."
You replied: Nope. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/10/111007161636.htm
I read it. Thanks, it gave some useful insights. Yes, we might have some very basic instinctual reasons to be altruistic or for that matter even selfish. However, what helps us apply these foundational principles in broader areas of life, is our upbringing. For example… we may instinctually feel sharing is good. But as we grow up, we learn from nurture the contexts when sharing may not be so good. Children in a particular place in India shun people from a certain community because they are generally known to be kidnappers. So, while sharing things with poor people on the road might be a kind act, sharing food with people from this community is frowned upon. This is the result of nurture. It is in a similar vein that you think killing animals is alright. Probably, left purely to your innate instincts, you may not feel very comfortable doing that killing.
However, more importantly, this still doesn’t answer why altruism is objectively right. Just because we have some natural tendencies, doesn’t make it justifiable objectively. There is another study that shows that children cheat at a very early age. The study says that when children want their mother’s attention, they cry like they are hungry… being deceptive. That for sure is not an objective reason to justify cheating…right?
"Perhaps, I can't say for sure, but I was brought up in a caste in America that are strictly devoted to god; yet here we are.”
Good point. It shows that a lot of factors are influential in shaping us. Making it even more complex…
"No. I mean that we determine the morality of an action based on intent and consequence.”
Intent and consequence and so on… these come into play only after the moral premise is decided. We first have to conclude that ‘stealing’ is immoral… once we do that, then we apply all the said parameters to judge if someone is really guilty of it or to what degree is his guilt.
But my question is even more fundamental. What objective reason do you have to show that stealing is wrong? I understand that you must be thinking that I am wasting time on the obvious. But as I showed to you… some of the things we think are obvious, is not always the case. Like killing. But bring animals into the picture, and suddenly things are no so obvious.
I am skipping some of the point in between… because, I think we are going over the same stuff repeatedly. If you think there is something important I have overlooked, please call my attention to it.
“We are not simply being asked to consider it, we are also being given a bald threat, which changes the philosophical dimensions of the debate quite completely.”
The threat has any meaning only if you choose to believe it. There is no compulsion on anyone to believe it. So, it still is about considering.
Other issues pertaining to god ‘man behind the screen’ etc… are relevant only once I begin to explain the logic behind my belief and ‘morality’. So, I will not delve into it right now.
Thanks for taking the time to type out the long posts. Partly, the reason why I skipped some points is because I feel tired of typing. I appreciate your patience and perseverance. Waiting for your responses.
Reality is right "I have come to the conclusion that llovequestions is on this site to rile up everyone and it is working...There is no substance or reasonable sensibility to his/her comments. So ridiculous are llovequestions responses and comments there can only be 2 conclusions. Either llovequestions is really an atheist just trying to rile us up by expressing ideas that are so outrageous, and ridiculous that she is just goofing on us. Or llovequstions is total insane by expressing ideas and thoughts that are so outrageous but she really believes to be true. So llovequestion is so clever and witty and funny by fooling us and she really is a atheist with a sense of humor or is she believes everything she said and is INSANE,
I have come back to this thread about six or seven times, to try and respond, but every time I give up. It isn't that any of the arguments are particularly good, or even that I don't have the time, but more that it is a circular argument spinning forever with no signs of stopping.
I am simply unwilling to write two pages worth of response for it to be dismissed on the principle that an omniscient invisible and ineffable sky god somehow trumps all logic and reason. This is getting silly, and now it is sucking in all kinds of tangential conversations.
@Travis
If that was a response to my post... i think i have given elaborate explanations for each of your points. And i did not dismiss your arguments simply citing 'ineffable sky god simply trumps all logic and reason.' I demonstrated to you with multiple examples, why your basis for morality is unreliable, subjective and whimsical. Unless you can show why it is otherwise, I can't see you having any ground to question the morality of not just God... but anybody else for that matter. But if you choose to end this discussion on this note... fine.
"If that was a response to my post... i think i have given elaborate explanations for each of your points."
Not entirely, no.
"And i did not dismiss your arguments simply citing 'ineffable sky god simply trumps all logic and reason.'"
Actually, yes, you did. By piling on things like omniscience, you are literally doing just that.
"I demonstrated to you with multiple examples, why your basis for morality is unreliable, subjective and whimsical."
No, you only demonstrated that it is conditional, just like everything else ever. Even gravitational constants are conditional, so I am not quite sure why the hell people would think that morality wouldn't be.
"Unless you can show why it is otherwise, I can't see you having any ground to question the morality of not just God... but anybody else for that matter."
So, because I have a morality that is conditional, and works on a graduating scale based on intent and harm; I don't have any ground to judge someone that killed everybody they ever met? That is simply ridiculous, you don't even NEED a good understanding of morality to recognize that some actions are inherently deleterious. No, you are really going after some idea that if morality isn't grounded in some universal truism, it becomes meaningless. That is kind of backwards, as ANY morals that are based on such truisms are generally recognized as barbaric and rather silly.
"But if you choose to end this discussion on this note... fine."
I really don't see where we can go from here, if you insist that your morality is special because it relies on a magical beneficent and omniscient being, which really isn't much different from answering with fairies.
Travis----I have been "watching" your discussions with Valiya and llovequestions . Sentences after sentences, paragraphs after paragraphs, pages after pages, posts after posts.....on and on and on and on and on---bullshit after bullshit after bullshit. Finally--I REALLY DON'T SEE WHERE WE CAN GO ON FROM HERE, IF YOU INSIST THAT YOUR MORALITY IS SPECIAL BECAUSE IT RELIES ON A MAGICAL BENEFICIENT AND OMNISCIENT BEING, WHICH ISN'T MUCH DIFFERENT FROM ANSWERING WITH FAIRIES, Travis----What the fuck took you so long......WHAT THE FUCK
Pages