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.
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.
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.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
@Pragmatic
We had already expended a lot of our energy and time on this topic of ‘proof for god’. Remember the discussions on ‘God leaving a trail’ in the universe? So, I don’t think we have to go over the whole grind again.
However, in this thread, my point is not about proving or disproving God. I am only discussing the epistemological difference between science and faith. Both these epistemologies start out from two different ends of the spectrum to serve two very different purposes. And both these systems uses reason and empiricism for their own ends.
Tell me your disagreements with what I said, and we will have a deeper discussion.
Definition of the word empirical: based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.
It has been my observation and experience that establishing a career is frequently more important than continuing a pregnancy for many women.
And again, a zygote is not a child.
@CyberLN
I have never heard a more simplistic explanation for empiricism.
Empiricism is when you first make an observation of a phenomenon, and then make a proposition to explain that phenomenon, and then conduct experiments to test the validity of that proposition, and if you get consistent results provide a falsification test for those wanting to disprove it.
You simply sitting in your house and making observations and arriving at certainty is childish. People of the of the old made observations too. They saw the sun rising from one end of the earth and setting at the other end. They felt the earth still and stationary... therefore they concluded that the sun went around the earth. Would you call that empirical testification of truth?
Empirical verification of truth is only possible in hard science such as physics, where mathematical precision is possible. In areas of humanities and sociology, even economics to a great extent, this kind of empiricism is not possible. That's the reason questions of morality are not dealt by hard sciences like physics. You cannot come up with an equation to decide if 'abortion' should be allowed or not.
This is what I mean when i say you cannot come up with answers with any degree of certitude regarding moral questions... you can only provide subjective answers, which differs from culture to culture.
You said, "establishing a career is more important than continuing pregnancy' according to your observation. There are many people who see otherwise. I am not talking about religionists... take for example the government of Japan. They are facing the problem of growing elderly population and a dwindling youth population. This is affecting their economy in a big way, as the youth are more productive. So, they want young couples to give birth to as many children as possible. From their point of view, a woman giving priority to her career over her pregnancy may not be highly appreciated.
Firstly, the definition I provided is a legitimate one and my response was based on it. That you have a different one is now obvious but doesn't change what I have observed or experienced.
Secondly, observing or experiencing things and drawing conclusions from it is not, in fact, childish. It is what, in great part, allowed our species to survive.
Thirdly, I come up with my notions of what is im/moral myself. That's how it works for everyone. You provided a scenario and I responded with my thoughts about it. That you disagree with how I apply my moral code to it versus how you would makes little difference to me at the moment.
Fourth, do you really think you need to tell me that there are people who have a different opinion about abortion than I do? Really? Well that's news to me (typed with lots of sarcasm)!
Fifth, giving birth doesn't take very long...why would a woman need to give up their careers to do so?
Sixth, that the government of Japan (or any government) is trying to insert itself into a woman's uterus is unconscionable.
@CYBER
“Firstly, the definition I provided is a legitimate one and my response was based on it. That you have a different one is now obvious but doesn't change what I have observed or experienced.”
It is not about how you or I define it … this is how the scientific community defines it. If it were the way you said it, then the example of the “ancients thinking that the sun goes around the earth” would have to be considered an empirical attestation of truth. (Hope you would agree that it is not).
“Secondly, observing or experiencing things and drawing conclusions from it is not, in fact, childish. It is what, in great part, allowed our species to survive.”
We are talking about ‘empiricism’ here. That definitely is NOT merely ‘observing or experiencing things and drawing conclusions from it.’ There is more to it. That’s why I say that your moral judgement of the ‘abortion’ example is not empirically verified.
“Thirdly, I come up with my notions of what is im/moral myself. That's how it works for everyone.”
The challenge was for you to prove your notion of morality empirically. I never contested that everyone has their own notions of morality. The question is whether these notions can be empirically verified such that it can be accepted like a scientific fact.
“You provided a scenario and I responded with my thoughts about it. That you disagree with how I apply my moral code to it versus how you would makes little difference to me at the moment.”
I was asking you to provide me your moral judgement on it with empirical proof, which you have failed, confirming my position that moral judgments can’t be made empirically.
“Fourth, do you really think you need to tell me that there are people who have a different opinion about abortion than I do? Really? Well that's news to me (typed with lots of sarcasm)!”
So you know that there are no universal standards for morality. Then how can you say which of these moral positions is the correct one to follow?
“Fifth, giving birth doesn't take very long...why would a woman need to give up their careers to do so?”
If you are looking for an airhostess job (as in the example I gave) then getting pregnant at the start of your career will seriously affect it.
“Sixth, that the government of Japan (or any government) is trying to insert itself into a woman's uterus is unconscionable.”
Any empirical proof for that judgement of morality???
If morality is subjective (and you seem to agree that it is), then why on earth are you after empirical verification? Seems you are requesting something from me that you have said is impossible to provision.
And again, why would a pregnancy seriously effect a job as an airline hostess? One can't push a cart up and down an aisle if pregnant? Taking a few weeks off to give birth ruins a career? Or is it that you think a woman who gives birth is then responsible for taking years off to do child rearing? If that's the case, then you have some gender role lessons to learn.
@ Cyber
What I was trying to prove in my post was that 'moral' questions can never be answered through reason or empiricism. This warrants the need for belief. Because if reason and empiricism cannot come to your aid, then the only option left is faith.
Since, you were arguing that you can make moral judgments using empiricism, i was asking you to prove it. And you just demonstrated that you can't.
Well, you failed to provision that proof in your post. I have no belief in any gods and am still quite able to make moral judgements. Reason did, in fact, come to my aid. Faith is not an option I've found helpful or necessary. You were using a decidedly different definition of the word empiricism than I was, neither of which is illegitimate. I observe the world and what happens in it then use my reason to determine what sort of behavior is acceptable and what isn't. You, on the other hand, use a book written centuries ago to determine how to behave today. Okay. Whatever. I have no problem with you doing that. I do, however, have a big fat problem with anyone who wants me to do so.
@Cyber
From what you say about your methodology, it's neither reason nor empiricism, it's merely your subjectivity.
I on the other hand never claim that my epistemology to make moral decisions is reason or empiricism. I say "Faith". Therefore, at least i have not contradicted myself like you do.
I you want to know what gives me the confidence that 'faith' based moral decisions are correct, that's another discussion. I am willing to start that decision.
But here is an advantage that faith morality readily has over 'subjective' morality.
If you ponder over the question of morality, you will come to realize that it's not so much about doing good, but it's more about doing good to others at the expense of good to yourself. If you eat healthy food, it's good. But nobody would say that it's moral. However, if you share that food with a hungry man, then it becomes moral. Therefore, the real question of morality is about sacrificing your good for the good of another.
When you morality is based on subjectivity like yours, the imperative to do good is weak. Because at the back of your mind you know that you could be wrong and that standards could change with time... moreover, morality is about sacrificing your good, and your utilitarian instincts are always pulling you back from it.
Faith trumps here because firstly you have a certainty about moral standards because you believe it is from the all-knowing God. Secondly, your faith that God rewards you for doing good keeps you motivated.
In the end, each of us is behaving according to what we each think is an appropriate standard. So it makes exactly zero difference whether that standard comes from faith or not. I share food with hungry people too. Show me data that indicate morality derived from faith results, on average, in a higher quality of life for humankind over the morality derived from (whatever you want to call the methodology I use) and then we can have a substantive conversation about which is better.
@Cyber
I will take that you have conceded that morality can’t be measured using empiricism. Now, that empiricism and reason have been discarded, there are two approaches left. One is faith. The other is subjectivity. There is no way to say which of these two systems is right or wrong. And there is no way we can measure them to assess which one is better.
So, instead of trying to quibble over which is right or wrong (which would be futile) let’s look at some of the salient features of each approach.
1. Faith based morality is stable. As in it will not change with time or place, therefore the one practicing it can do so with confidence. However, in subjective morality, what you did yesterday will be wrong today, and you will not be sure of what you are doing today, because it could be wrong tomorrow.
2. Faith based morality motivates me to act on it. When you believe that moral actions are rewarded by God, you will be motivated to act on it, even if it bears some losses for you. Whereas in subjective morality, there is no incentive to act on it, which will weaken your resolve to live by it.
These are two primary reasons that make morality without faith weak. You asked about studies on morality. I know of two studies, there could be more.
The first one was conducted by American Sociological Society, which is a highly reputed 100-year old organization that conducts social surveys for governments to help in policy making. Based on a 6 years old study conducted in 36 countries cutting across geography, culture and religion, the study found that Muslims are the least sexually promiscuous people in the world.
Next, there was a study done by Huffington Post in the UK, which concluded that Muslims are the most charitable people in the UK, while atheists were far below in rank.
If you insist, I can provide evidence for both. Right now I don’t have the time to source it out.
What is your goal for this conversation? What do you hope to gain from it?
Just sharing what i know.
I doubt that very much, valiya.
Be that as it may, I'll opt out of an ongoing dialogue with you about morality. What I hear from your posts is a claim to some sort of moral highground and I just don't, and likely never will, buy that. I do not think religion, on a whole, provides that. There's simply too much evidence to the contrary.
I probably will always think that since behavior is executed by the individual, the individual is the one making decisions about its moral efficacy. You can say it is standardized because it is in your book but I just don't see much standardization across those who claim to adhere to your (or any other) book.
So, argue away about who has a higher quality moral code. The proof is in the pudding...is someone an asshole or not?
Side note: what the heck is wrong with promiscuity?
Side note: what the heck is wrong with promiscuity?
That's precisely the problem. For you promiscuity might be fine. But your wife it may not be okay. And why is either of you right or wrong?
I actually don't have a wife. I do, however, have a husband.
Fidelity is an entirely different thing than promiscuity. If a couple contracts with each other that their relationship will be exclusive or open, then i think pretty much anyone would say that a non-mutually agreed upon breaking of the contract is wrong. However, if an unencumbered gal wants to have consensual sexual intercourse with 543 people then 'gay ga zinta hate.'
Sorry about the mistaken gender identity.
That's your subjectivity speaking... there are people who argue that as long as they you cheat their spouse and keep it a tightly guarded secret (so that no one is hurt in the relationship)... it's fine. that's another take. well you surely seem to have a problem with that. this is how subjective morality goes... anything becomes alright and justifiable, it only depends on how badly you want to do it.
Do you think it is immoral for a single adult woman to have consensual sexual intercourse with 534 different adults? Do you think it is immoral for a single woman to go into a marriage without being a virgin? Do you think it is equally immoral for a man to do so? Do you think virginity is a commodity that is "given" or "lost"? Do you think that someone's (other than a spouse with whom you have a contract of exclusiveness) sexual activity with another consenting adult is any of your business? Do you think sexual activity outside of marriage is, in general, immoral? If you are married, would you have married your spouse if that person was not a virgin?
You asserted that the only reason moral tenets differ from person to person is that they just badly want to do something. You have exactly zero way of knowing that. For you to assert that tells me a lot about how you think.
Hi Cyber LN
All these questions you have posed will get a variety of answers depending on the time, place, culture etc. There will be no simple answers to these questions even if you did a survey among atheists or scientists. What it shows is that morality has no common standard, and judgements are subjective. That’s exactly what I am trying to show.
Regarding you second point… I meant that when a person only has subjectivity to decide on what is right and what is wrong, then depending on what he wants in life… he will justify any action. For example, if a businessman would make more profits by telling a lie, he will find a justification to tell it. And is this a mere assertion… no. Because we see this happening all the time. Even Al Capone had a justification for his crimes. This is human nature.
I did not ask you to tell me how others would answer those questions. Notice the pronoun I used: you. I asked YOU those questions.
I don't know how my answers are going to help this discussion. But since you insist, let me humor you.
Do you think it is immoral for a single adult woman to have consensual sexual intercourse with 534 different adults?
Yes it is immoral.
Do you think it is immoral for a single woman to go into a marriage without being a virgin?
No. It is not immoral.
Do you think it is equally immoral for a man to do so?
If you asking about single man having sex with many girls… yes it is immoral.
Do you think virginity is a commodity that is "given" or "lost"?
No.
Do you think that someone's (other than a spouse with whom you have a contract of exclusiveness) sexual activity with another consenting adult is any of your business?
No, it is not my business.
Do you think sexual activity outside of marriage is, in general, immoral?
Yes. It is immoral.
If you are married, would you have married your spouse if that person was not a virgin?
Yes.
"Do you think it is immoral for a single adult woman to have consensual sexual intercourse with 534 different adults?
Yes it is immoral."
Why is it immoral? If your answer is that your god says it is, why do you think your god said that?
One more question...you said, "sorry about the mistaken gender identity," just for grins. Does having a husband mean I must be a certain gender?
NOPE. You really can't say. I surrender.
NOPE. You really can't say. I surrender.
First of all, a woman has the right to do as she pleases with her own body. No one has the right to "force" a woman to have a child that knows they don't want one.This is the reason you find babies wrapped in a plastic bag in the garbage dumpster, or some other horrific scenario. I would much rather see the former, then the latter. Like I've always said...the church's teachings are so out of touch with the real world, its ridiculous. This is why you have pedophile priests, babies being murdered AFTER their birth because the churches are against abortion, people having 7,8,10,12 kids because the church frowns upon birth control...STUPIDITY!! They are against stem cell research, something that will save lives. Morality?...does ANYONE with a brain in their head REALLY need God to rell them that something is right. or wrong, or makes sense or not?? Do you really have to be told that killing people is wrong...stealing, lying, cheating, hitting people,etc?? Do you NOT have your own mind, and set of morals?? What the hell kind of world are we living in??? We'd have a much more peaceful existence, and a HELL of a lot LESS killing WITHOUT RELIGION!!! Seems the more religious people are, the more killing they do which to THEM is in some retarded way they see as justified.
@Valiya
"Remember the discussions on ‘God leaving a trail’ in the universe?"
Yes, I remember your rhetoric contortionism a little too well. Since then, my impression of you as a debater is very tarnished.
I also remember that you continuously demanded proof from the sceptics while at the same time absolving your own position from anything even remotely resembling proof. Which was the point of my previous post.
And here you are again, shamelessly asking for empirical proof for borderline moral dilemmas. But from your religious perspective, there is no empirical proof presented, ever.
@pragmatic
Why so much vitriol? I don't labor under any illusion that the whole world will ever see these questions of god and atheism the same way. there is bound to be differences, and let's learn to disagree with mutual respect. It's so easy to make comments like 'my impression of you as a debater is very tarnished...' It wouldn't take much time for me to return similar compliments. But that only sheds light about the person making such comments than the person it's made about.
Regarding my "shamelessly asking for empirical proof"... you have to read my initial post to understand that, which you have not done. And since this time round, I am sure that you are directing this post at me (since you have my name on top), it's inexcusable that you are responding from self-imposed ignorance.
"Why so much vitriol?" - You asked if I remember and I replied.
---
To clarify my question, I asked:
"What empirical proof can you produce, of your gods existence, or the validity of the morality that should somehow come from this god?"
I made a mistake to mention "of your gods existence". What I wanted to ask was simply the part about morality. But I will rephrase the question.
As you said: "both these systems uses reason and empiricism for their own ends."
Can you use your own example to CyberLN and provide empirical proof for the moral decision in that situation, derived from Islam?
@Pragmatic
Science and faith are two different epistemologies in that they approach truth from two different ends.
Science claims to start from skepticism, apply reason/empiricism and arrive at answers (truth).
Faith starts from answers (truth), passes through reason/empiricism and arrive at human understanding.
As the epistemology of science is easy for anyone to understand, I will not further explain that. But the epistemology of faith will need some explanation.
For example, the Quran says, “Do not the unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together, and then were cleaved asunder.”
In order to understand this verse, I will have to resort to reasoning. And then I come across the big bang theory, using which I am able to make some sense of this verse. This is what I mean when I say that use of reason is the way to understand faith.
This method of understanding the faith was employed by the earlier generation of scholars and that’s why we find a sudden explosion of science among the arabs after the advent of Islam.
However, there is another side to it. This has to deal with the laws of morality. These laws were never put to the test of reason or empiricism and were accepted as it was laid out in the scriptures and explained by the prophet.
That is because morality can never be analyzed using reason. If you wait for empirical evidence to act on moral principles, then there would never be any morality in the world, because there is no way you can prove them empirically.
Pages