WTF is this forum coming to? Awesome discussions on life, the universe & everything!

Whose logic? Throughout this thread, you've conveniently placed the Christian God and central tenets on untestable pedestals.

That's not logical or reasonable, that's unfair!

Absolutely. My last post was addressing theism broadly, not christianity specifically. In fact, with my background, Christianity and Judaism are the religions with which I am most unfamiliar. I am soldiering through a KJVB at the moment to at least get a handle on the literature.

 

Ben if you're suggesting I think the Earth was created in 7 days and is only however old the Bible makes it seem to be (I think people have worked it out?) then you are sorely mistaken, you know me better than that surely

 

Metaphysics is not "conveniently" unscientific... it is inherently unscientific. It might align with science, but it's not testable by science. To say that this is "unfair" is...unfair.

And the Christian worldview is logical and reasonable if you presuppose the existence of the biblical God; as Nexxo pointed out, there is an internal logic and reason within the framework of the Christian worldview; the question is whether or not the presupposition of a god is logical and reasonable, which is what we have been debating for 60 odd pages LOL.

 

Yeh I'm just winding you up, but there is some stuff in there that's wildly incorrect. I don't see anything wrong with religion as you well know, but I don't think it requires quite as much philosophy as it's given. I reminds me of a certain episode of South Park when people keep 'reading between the lines' so to speak.

 

Basically (I'm such a pragmatic ). But also: people gravitate to the belief system that resonates with them. They don't talk about people finding God/faith for nothing. People don't become Christian; Christianity becomes them. Christianity did not make you who you are any more than it made Rev. Phelps who he is. You are two very different people, so you embrace different interpretations of Christianity, which reinforces who you were all along. You are the lens that shapes your faith as much as the other way around.

That's a difficult question because although the human psyche exists on both a physical plain (chemistry and electrical impulses in a complex physical network of neurons), which is the domain of physical science, and a subjective, experiential plain (our experience of consciousness) which falls outside the domain of physical science, these dimensions are inextricably linked. One is analogous with the other so we can't tell which comes first --although we are finding that something happens in brain activity seven seconds before one (thinks one) makes a spontaneous decision, and we know that our experience of our consciousness can be altered in all sorts of ways through messing around with brain chemistry and structure, whereas it is a lot harder to affect our brain chemistry and structure through consciousness, and possible only on a much more limited and modest scale. And there is nothing to suggest that when the brain stops, consciousness continues to exist (whereas when consciousness stops --such as in deep sleep, or at reflexive levels of functioning, the brain merrily chugs on being active).

Consciousness appears to be an epiphenomenon like the experience of "red" is an epiphenomenon of light cones in the retina sensitive to light of a 720nm wavelength being triggered by photons of the right energy level, and these signals being processed by the visual cortex. Science can tell us whether there is a brain activity that corresponds with my subjective experience of "me", and analyse it. It could even manipulate physical brain activity to produce predictable changes in my subjective experience of "me". "Me", like the colour "red" is metaphysical but it appears inextricably tied to corresponding brain activity that is physical.

Like I said: 'reality' is tricky.

 

Yes, yes. I agree with you. That's exactly my point - this could go on till the cows come home and leave again the next morning - the physical-science-y folks are never going to grant you that rock-solid "Yes, He exists" and you're never going to be happy with the "We don't know what's out there" either.

I was born and raised religious, so I do know both side of the fence. I'm just sitting on this side because the divine side is too muddled for my liking (how many gods? which one is the right one? Stone the women? Hump men? Tea and cake or death?). Like Nexxo said, it's always what resonates within.

 

To say that your world view and everything written in the bible is directly from god (I know I have got that part wrong but you know what I mean) is equally arrogant. What is illogical or unreasonable about the world view that god does not exist?

 

It has to be justified in the christian mind, otherwise their entire world view becomes invalid instantaneously. However, since christianity does not represent the majority world view on creation....

 

It's equally arrogant I would say to assume one or the other. But the question is, why start trying to burn another person for the sheer reason that their belief is incompatible with your(not necessarily yours) worldview? Is that not perpetuating the same thing that we fight against?

Although that sounds inflammatory, what I mean is: It's a belief. Who cares? It's thoroughly personal. Entirely contained within one's own mind. If there are people who are imposing their beliefs on others, then we may have issue, but if they're not. Leave them be, there's no reason to criticize a certain belief unless it really does cause massive harm to a person.

Yeah it's overly simplistic, but perhaps a calm conversation instead of interrogation leads to progress.

 

So you are saying that it is arrogant to believe that the Bible is the Word of God - why?

Nothing - that's not what I've been saying. People are free to disbelieve in God if they so choose, but they must also disbelieve in (for example) good and evil if they are to remain logically consistent. It's not so much the disbelief in God that is illogical or unreasonable... it's the other beliefs that people choose to incorporate into their atheistic worldview that are often illogical and unreasonable.

 

Because it implies that it is the absolute truth. Although more correctly, it implies that you believe it is the absolute truth. You understand that distinction; many people (Christians and atheists) don't.

No, they only have to disbelieve in Christian concepts of absolute, externally objective good and evil to remain logically consistent.

Together with the above, this is an important point. People don't make these seemingly small but very important distinctions and prejudices ensue. It is not arrogant to believe that your beliefs are true, as long as you acknowledge that other people to have their own beliefs which they believe to be true. Similarly you can believe in your concepts of "good" and "evil", as long as you acknowledge that other people also have concepts of good and evil.

If you start thinking that: "atheists can't have morals because they are not Christian" then you are arrogant as much as someone who thinks: "Christians are illogical because they believe in something that cannot be proven to exist".

Neither Christianity nor atheism is necessarily inherently illogical, but people in both camps have their illogical and unreasonable beliefs. It's humans being human.

 

Nexxo (again) has answered more eloquently than I could.

You have pretty much nailed my view point on the discussion.

I'm an atheist who was bought up a protestant who went to sunday school who is now married to a Catholic. I see both sides of the discussion, the good and the bad. From my limited travels around the world the people I have met have always come across as good natured, friendly and just want to get on with their lives peacefully irrespective of their race or creed.

I also make a clear distinction between faith and religion. My wife is Catholic and had a strong Irish-Catholic upbringing but she doesn't agree with a lot of the things the Catholic church has to say. I don't think Lenny or Kayin are wrong in their beliefs and i'm not trying to exorcise them of the holly spirit but they are excellent people to ask questions regarding faith and Christianity as they are both highly intelligent, eloquent people who have thought deeply about their beliefs.

 

Why is belief that something is absolute truth arrogant?

I would never say that atheists can't have morals, nor would I say that atheists can't be moral people. I believe that humans are intrinsically moral so people will invariably moralise their (and their neighbours') behaviours. The point I'm making is that atheists who talk about morality as an inherent human quality are contradicting themselves - it can't be an inherent quality if it's a human construct. What you are saying is absolutely correct; however, the problem is that most atheists do in fact believe in an "absolute, externally objective" good and evil, hence the inconsistency.

The problem with your idea of morality is that, if true, it holds that behaviours such as child molestation and rape are wrong only for the person or people who qualify them as such; in the Christian worldview, child molestation and rape are always always always wrong... they are intrinsically evil. A surprising number of atheists would agree with the latter.

 

Most atheists (and agnostics) understand and live by the moral code that has been developed through the ages, ingrained from an early age and impossible to avoid.

Even serial killers, rapists, fraudsters and thieves understand the difference between good and evil, they just choose to override what society dictates for personal pleasure/gain.

I don't think there is any belief involved, just inherited knowledge based on many hundreds of thousands of years of experience living in social groups. Of course there will be subjective variances in acceptance of these social rules, but very few rational people of sound mind would argue with the basic tenets of morality - even if these do not (always) fit into that person's world view.

Festive variety?

 

It's a status quo of the society we live in. In a hundred years, it will probably be diferent.

 

It isn't. That's the point I was making (a bit hazily). Some people argue that if you state that your beliefs are the word of God, this implies that it is the absolute truth. I'm saying that it is not arrogant to believe it is the absolute truth, because it does not imply the statement that others are wrong --just that you believe that they are. Everyone can think what they want.

Something can be an inherent human quality and a human construct --e.g. language, culture. I would go as far as to say that they are human constructs because they are the product of processes and qualities that are inherently human.

Personally I have never met an atheist who believes in absolute, externally objective good and evil in the sense that you speak of. Personally I find such yardsticks tricky and potentially dangerous because they cannot be questioned but must be accepted unquestioningly. And I think you should always question the morality of your actions.

No, I believe they are always wrong because they are always harmful to the victim. Harm can be objectively defined and qualified. You have argued before that (regardless of the pragmatic or functional logic underpinning it) it is basically arbitrary to define harm as "wrong", but it is equally arbitrary to define God as "good" (As we have discussed: how do you know God is good? Because we believe He is).

Now you can argue that not all atheists think that way, but not all people who consider themselves Christian think your way either. US Mormon communes find it perfectly acceptable to marry and have sex with under-age girls without their consent, pointing to Biblical scriptures to justify their actions. There are also some interesting passages in the Old Testament that skirt pretty closely to condoning rape (Sodom and Gomorrah: please don't harm my visiting angels, gang-bang my daughters instead!). I guess it's relative after all.

Well, most do. Others have a serious failure to empathise. We call them psychopaths or sociopaths.

 

Precisely, it's ever evolving - but it's not a belief as much as it is a reality.

Exactamundo.

 

That's my point - you equate wrongdoing and harm; that's your subjective stance on a universal consequence. We talked about this all before... there's nothing wrong with harm except that you believe (arbitrarily) that there is. Even if it is true, it still has no grounding in anything other than your opinion that harm should be considered wrong. So why should your opinion that "harm is wrong" be considered more valid than the opinion that "harm is right"?

Pretty much every atheist I know believes in objective good an evil, which is why I was surprised by your take on atheistic morality - you have a uniquely thoughtful (even analytical) approach to your own worldview, and you recognise that your take morality is about function over logic.

All people who consider themselves atheists are atheists; it's not the same for Christians, unfortunately. It is the Bible that teaches what morality is, not the examples set by the people who claim to follow it.

 

Why should your opinion that God exists be considered more valid than the opinion that He doesn't? It's all belief in the end, no?

As I said: as long as it brings out the best in you and does not harm anyone else it's all good.

You're hanging out with the wrong atheists. Many Christians I know have not thought about their faith like you or KayinBlack either. But just to nit-pick: function has logic too.

That's what's wrong with atheism --it doesn't have denominations!

You're right that it is a very ill-defined category, but so is Christianity: we have about 30 denominations bickering over the "true" interpretation of the Bible. You believe yours is the correct one (I believe that it is certainly better than most). Others believe theirs is.

 

It's a valid question, and I believe it has already been answered by myself and Kayin - that's the very point of discussing morality; morality doesn't take on any real meaning unless there is an objective standard by which to judge it. The inconsistency with subjective morality is that people are punished not for what is disagreeable to them but for what is disagreeable to others. Why? Because people have an ingrained, inherent belief that harm is wrong; everybody does (unless they have a mental impairment).