Happy Atheist Forum

So Pascal's wager is pretty much 'you might as well believe in god because if he exists then your going to heaven for believing' right?
Well i was thinking surely if you don't believe in God but lead a good life as an atheist (helping people, giving to charity ECT..) AND you die and God does exist if he is all loving and forgiving as Christians believe SURELY he would allow you into heaven?

For example an Atheist and a Christian both die and meet God ( I'm an Atheist so this is purely hypothetical). Both have been Good all their lives, Yet the Atheist has been Good because he helped fellow human beings and for the good of humanity rather than the Christian who may of just thought 'if i do good things then i will be allowed into heaven when i die'

I know several people who don't particularly like me being an atheist and always seem to revert to the old 'well at least I'm not going to hell' comeback in arguments but put this way surely the atheist is the better person? The atheist did the good things without expecting a reward, he expected that once he died he would simply decompose and be recycled.

So surely those who live their lives by pascals wager should reconsider, and not do good things out of what is ultimately selfishness and in fact think:

If I do good without religion and there is in fact a God when I die, surely doing these good things completely selflessly would in fact be as good (or better) than doing them in the name of the Church?

In my own opinion, Pascal's wager is just for people who are afraid of hell.

This is precisely why I've always felt the whole argument that atheists can't have morals is ridiculous.  Some of us know right from wrong well enough to do it without needing some book to outline it in detail.  What kind of person has to be told not to lie, cheat and steal to know that it's wrong?

Since this is a completely hypothetical situation, I'd like to believe that IF there was a God that was truly all-loving and all-knowing, he could see into the hearts of both the atheist and Christian and know that the atheist's heart was in the right place.  Not only that the atheist's heart was in the right place, but see the thought process that allowed the atheist to arrive at the conclusion that there was no God, and still allow him or her into Heaven.

I'd also be inclined to agree though that Pascal's Wager is for people who fear the unknown (or what comes after death).

Not so fast... You're forgetting that the Christian god has an "Exclusivity Clause":

Quote"I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life; no one comes to the Father except through me."
(John 14:6)

The problem is that other gods may also have exclusivity clauses...

Damned if you do.  Damned if you don't.

Quote from: "philosoraptor"This is precisely why I've always felt the whole argument that atheists can't have morals is ridiculous.  Some of us know right from wrong well enough to do it without needing some book to outline it in detail.  What kind of person has to be told not to lie, cheat and steal to know that it's wrong?

Also - the books that different people claim they derive morals from don't seem to outline much of anything in any real detail anyway regarding more difficult questions of morality - especially modern moral questions.  Inevitably the morality found in these old tomes is decided via interpretation, which I would argue isn't much different from you or I using common sense or empathy or whatever to decide right from wrong.

I was thinking in terms of stuff like the 10 Commandments, but you're right.  Those things are just as open to interpretation as anything else.

I once had a pastor tell me that having hate in your heart was the same as committing murder, and that having lusty thoughts was the same as adultery. lulwut?

Quote from: "philosoraptor"I was thinking in terms of stuff like the 10 Commandments, but you're right.  Those things are just as open to interpretation as anything else.

I once had a pastor tell me that having hate in your heart was the same as committing murder, and that having lusty thoughts was the same as adultery. lulwut?

Yeah, man, I was shocked when my sweetie first told me that he had serious issues with sex and sexual desire for a while because his mom told him growing up that, according to the bible, having lustful thoughts about someone was the same thing as raping them in god's eyes.  I was like - holy shit, srsly??

I find drawing those kind of comparisons really dangerous.  When you consider how many well known serial killers and rapists, etc.. came from religious backgrounds (on top of being mentally ill), it seems even creepier.  I can think of a disturbed individual thinking about doing those kind of acts, but holding back knowing they are wrong.  If some yahoo priest comes along and tells them that lustful thoughts are the same as rape, and hate is the same as murder, what's to stop them if they believe those acts are one in the same?  If you're already having lustful thoughts, might as well go and get your rape on, if you're that kind of crazy that actually equates these things as being the same.

Quote from: "joeactor"Not so fast... You're forgetting that the Christian god has an "Exclusivity Clause":

Quote"I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life; no one comes to the Father except through me."
(John 14:6)

The problem is that other gods may also have exclusivity clauses...

Damned if you do.  Damned if you don't.

I've always thought that with all the gods roaming around, there is more likely to be a huge "heavenly" battle between the gods to see who gets to torture us Heathens.  It could be pretty spectacular, if you think about it.  Zeus and the Christian God, toe to toe, a real "rumble in the sky" kind of smackdown.  I figure I'll be a "spirit" by then, right, so I'll just slip out the side universe and get lost among the stars.

Quote from: "Martin TK"I've always thought that with all the gods roaming around, there is more likely to be a huge "heavenly" battle between the gods to see who gets to torture us Heathens.  It could be pretty spectacular, if you think about it.  Zeus and the Christian God, toe to toe, a real "rumble in the sky" kind of smackdown.  I figure I'll be a "spirit" by then, right, so I'll just slip out the side universe and get lost among the stars.

Sunday!  Sunday!  Sunday!

Get ready!

The God Wrestling Federation is coming to *YOUR* universe!

See your favorite GWF superstars in a no-holds-barred smackdown of cosmic proportions!

See!  Yaweh "Smite Me!" Supreme and his half-human/half-god son Jesus face off against the terrible tag-team duo of Zeus and Odin!

Witness Loki "The Trickster" take it to the mat with "The Indian Elephant" Ganesh!

And you won't want to miss the "Harlot Half-Time" show!

Free plagues and pestilence for all the kiddies!

Show up early!

Show up late!

But just SHOW UP!

Quote from: "Martin TK"[Zeus and the Christian God, toe to toe, a real "rumble in the sky" kind of smackdown.

Maybe they all smited each other.  
That could be why we haven't seen any of them for so long.

So far as Pascal goes, I don't know if I could believe even if I tried really hard.
I don't think following the forms is enough for god.

As Joe pointed out, Christian doctrine says that only those who believe that Jesus is the Christ are saved (John 20:30-31). The problem I've always had with PW doesn't have anything to do with the typical critique that it can work just as well for any religion as Christianity . . . it's that it doesn't work for Christianity at all!

Full disclaimer: I'm speaking from the Reformation perspective that salvation is by faith alone. Works have no bearing on one's salvation. There are, however, forms of Christianity that think that works are absolutely necessary. Whether or not they have a proper understanding of "salvation" is a matter of theological debate between Christians. With them, I think, your point is valid and should be seriously considered. Again, however, from a conservative reformation perspective, the argument won't work because salvation has nothing to do with behavior and everything to do with Whom you are trusting for your salvation.

And philosoraptor, the standard argument is not that atheists cannot be moral. The Bible expressly says the can (Rom 2:14ff). The argument is that there is no objective foundations for morality if God does not exist. That's hardly a contentious point. Most atheistic philosophers accept it and try to ground morality in a rational subjectivity (i.e., "enlightened selfishness," etc.). But to your point, if any Christian says that a non-Christian cannot be moral, they are simply misinformed. It is extremely important theologically, biblically, and philosophically to recognize that you have the same capacity for morality as any theist.

Pascal's wager has been failed since first minutes its was made.
best way to beat it is reversed pascals wager.
 
theres a god and they want to see if creations are smart enough to go to the theme park.
others will get waste (maybe not in a burning lake of fire,just stop to exist)
then he clean up his trace in any possible way and wrote some crazy book thousands years ago to challenge our capability of logic. it's a field training.

if any creator want some of his creation to become his friend , he will pick the not crazy one.

Quote from: "pinkocommie"Yeah, man, I was shocked when my sweetie first told me that he had serious issues with sex and sexual desire for a while because his mom told him growing up that, according to the bible, having lustful thoughts about someone was the same thing as raping them in god's eyes.  I was like - holy shit, srsly??

According to the church, everyone who has gone through puberty is a rapist.

Quote from: "Jac3510"And philosoraptor, the standard argument is not that atheists cannot be moral.

Actually, yes it is.  Myself (and I'm sure others here) get it from a lot of so-called Christians (and sometimes people of other faiths).  But then again, it's not as if that many Christians are all that familiar with the Bible to know what it says about morality-they just assume those without a belief in God couldn't possibly have a system of morals.  I think you'd be surprised how many atheists have more knowledge of the Bible than your average Christian.  Either way, it's still a very common assumption that atheists can't be moral because they don't believe in God.

Quote from: "philosoraptor"

Quote from: "Jac3510"And philosoraptor, the standard argument is not that atheists cannot be moral.

Actually, yes it is.  Myself (and I'm sure others here) get it from a lot of so-called Christians (and sometimes people of other faiths).  But then again, it's not as if that many Christians are all that familiar with the Bible to know what it says about morality-they just assume those without a belief in God couldn't possibly have a system of morals.  I think you'd be surprised how many atheists have more knowledge of the Bible than your average Christian.  Either way, it's still a very common assumption that atheists can't be moral because they don't believe in God.

No, it isn't. It may be the popular argument you keep getting, but just because a lot of people repeat it doesn't make it the standard. The standard is that which as been established by the philosophical community. Given its popularity in the literature, both professional and popular, there is no excuse for anyone not to be familiar with it who has claimed to study the issue at all.

Further, I think you shouldn't assume what I would or would not be surprised by. It seems to me that rather than focusing on what uneducated (well intentioned or not) Christians argue, you should focus on the strongest form of the position as it is properly advocated. In other words, the standard argument, at minimum.

Quote from: "Martin TK"I've always thought that with all the gods roaming around, there is more likely to be a huge "heavenly" battle between the gods to see who gets to torture us Heathens.  It could be pretty spectacular, if you think about it.  Zeus and the Christian God, toe to toe, a real "rumble in the sky" kind of smackdown.  I figure I'll be a "spirit" by then, right, so I'll just slip out the side universe and get lost among the stars.

It appears that Thor took Jesus in the first round:

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jerrypettit.com%2Fblog%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2008%2F10%2Fthor.jpg&hash=252a8e581cfa0f06ced6cdc9444787aabaad4c58)

Quote from: "Jac3510"

Quote from: "philosoraptor"

Quote from: "Jac3510"It seems to me that rather than focusing on what uneducated (well intentioned or not) Christians argue, you should focus on the strongest form of the position as it is properly advocated. In other words, the standard argument, at minimum.

Why would we focus on the argument we almost never hear as opposed to the one we hear day in and day out?  It may be important what Christian philosophers think but it's more important to me what the Christians we encounter on a regular basis may think.  What you argue about behind the doors of seminary has little impact on the people we associate with in real life.

Perhaps no educated, idealized Christian would ever suggest that atheists are immoral but many of the average Christians we encounter do.

Quote from: "Jac3510"

Quote from: "philosoraptor"

Quote from: "Jac3510"And philosoraptor, the standard argument is not that atheists cannot be moral.

Actually, yes it is.

No, it isn't. It may be the popular argument you keep getting, but just because a lot of people repeat it doesn't make it the standard.

Actually, that's exactly what it means as "popular" is largely taken as synonymous with "accepted as normal or average", though it also points out that we might be talking from different dictionaries.

In merely discussing what some of us encounter in our normal interactions with theists (which, granted, does explicitly limit our sample to the subset of them we interact with or read/see in some form of media) the normal/usual/"standard" argument we get a preponderance of the time is that atheists cannot be moral.

Quote from: "Jac3510"The standard is that which as been established by the philosophical community. Given its popularity in the literature, both professional and popular, there is no excuse for anyone not to be familiar with it who has claimed to study the issue at all.

Further, I think you shouldn't assume what I would or would not be surprised by. It seems to me that rather than focusing on what uneducated (well intentioned or not) Christians argue, you should focus on the strongest form of the position as it is properly advocated. In other words, the standard argument, at minimum.

As philosoraptor points out, many atheists are extremely well versed in both the details of the various holy books as well as philosophy and other fields.  I think you'll need to expound upon your claim of what is standard as it looks like it's being assumed in two different ways just in posts in this thread.

From reading philosophy, the standard definitions of morality are extremely relative to the society and the school of thought of the philosopher so you'll need to be more explicit first whether you're talking from a descriptive or normative sense, and then onto whether you take a simple Aristotelianism view, ethical relativist viewpoint, consequentialist or otherwise.  Each school posits their own standard forms of morality that differ greatly in the details and universality of the claims.

As for the verse in Romans you alluded to earlier, one of the common (I'll use that word rather than "standard") interpretations I've heard (sometimes in the same train of thought as the "atheists have no morality" statements) making use of it applied to atheists and other non-christians is the assumption that though we reject the claims of a deific morality we still have some level of morality due to us in some fuzzy way feeling or knowing it anyway since it is the universal standard set forth by a deity that we just cannot escape.  The common claim there is that their deity set a "standard" for morality that our non-theist stumbling around in the world cannot help but recognize even if we reject the source.


Or, to inject a but of internet-based levity:  The problem with standards is that there are too many to choose from. [Original author unknown]

Quote from: "Jac3510"the standard argument

I like many of Jac3510's posts, but to whom is this standard argument a standard?

Quote from: "Kylyssa"Why would we focus on the argument we almost never hear as opposed to the one we hear day in and day out?  It may be important what Christian philosophers think but it's more important to me what the Christians we encounter on a regular basis may think.  What you argue about behind the doors of seminary has little impact on the people we associate with in real life.

Perhaps no educated, idealized Christian would ever suggest that atheists are immoral but many of the average Christians we encounter do.

Why do atheists bother to read/study the Bible and other holy books? I would think that it is because you want to understand, to one degree or another, what those faiths teach. Sadly, you often have a deeper desire to understand a religion than its own adherents do. In any case, how many times have you corrected a religious person on what their own book actually teaches? I'm sure you have done it before and will do it in the future. I say, as a Christian, bravo. Do it, and do it all the more, because uneducated Christians don't do the church any favors; if they can be schooled by an unbeliever, it only serves to show them how much deeper they should go in their own faith.

So why should you bother with an argument you don't usually hear? For precisely the same reason that you rightly correct them on other issues. When a Christian argues that atheists can't be moral, you can certainly argue with them and try to demonstrate that you can be just as moral as they. Yet in the process, you are only validating a position that shouldn't be validated. Better would be to point to Christian philosophers who openly reject the argument. Tell them that they are on the wrong side not only of modern Christian scholarship, but of Christian scholarship historically.

Finally, the standard argument is not one held behind closed doors in seminaries. As I've already said, this is a standard argument that no one disagrees with. Our job is to popularlize it so that those outside of the academy can get it right, too. In any case, I know of absolutely no Christian philosopher or theologian who argues that atheists cannot be moral. Literally every single one of them, to a man, expressly rejects the position as absurd and anti-biblical.

Quote from: "pckizer"Actually, that's exactly what it means as "popular" is largely taken as synonymous with "accepted as normal or average", though it also points out that we might be talking from different dictionaries.

In merely discussing what some of us encounter in our normal interactions with theists (which, granted, does explicitly limit our sample to the subset of them we interact with or read/see in some form of media) the normal/usual/"standard" argument we get a preponderance of the time is that atheists cannot be moral.

Yes, "standard" can mean "popular." I wasn't using it that way. I make it a point of choosing my language carefully. In my reply, I took the time to point out that I was using it in its technical sense.

I'm just trying to help everyone, you and me. Rather than justifying the popular argument about morality by arguing with them on its merits, point out that they are incorrect and have misunderstood their own argument. You can use any one of a million highly respected Christian theologians, apologists, and philosophers to prove your point. You "win the argument," and I have one less Christian making bad arguments to worry about.

QuoteAs philosoraptor points out, many atheists are extremely well versed in both the details of the various holy books as well as philosophy and other fields.  I think you'll need to expound upon your claim of what is standard as it looks like it's being assumed in two different ways just in posts in this thread.

From reading philosophy, the standard definitions of morality are extremely relative to the society and the school of thought of the philosopher so you'll need to be more explicit first whether you're talking from a descriptive or normative sense, and then onto whether you take a simple Aristotelianism view, ethical relativist viewpoint, consequentialist or otherwise.  Each school posits their own standard forms of morality that differ greatly in the details and universality of the claims.

As for the verse in Romans you alluded to earlier, one of the common (I'll use that word rather than "standard") interpretations I've heard (sometimes in the same train of thought as the "atheists have no morality" statements) making use of it applied to atheists and other non-christians is the assumption that though we reject the claims of a deific morality we still have some level of morality due to us in some fuzzy way feeling or knowing it anyway since it is the universal standard set forth by a deity that we just cannot escape.  The common claim there is that their deity set a "standard" for morality that our non-theist stumbling around in the world cannot help but recognize even if we reject the source.

Or, to inject a but of internet-based levity:  The problem with standards is that there are too many to choose from. [Original author unknown]

There is no standard view of morality generally. As you note, there are consequentialists, deontologists, aretaics (like myself), and within those a host of subsets for each. There are distinctions between theoretical, practical, and moral reasoning that must be considered (which includes distinctions such as expressivims, internalism, and many others) as well as the interrelation between each; no two philosophers agree on any of these, much less how all of them work together.

I, however, made no claims regarding there being a standard view of morality. I made the claim that there is a standard view of the relationship between atheism and morality in Christian academics. When Christians come along who are unaware of that standard and make an invalid argument, rather than take pains to try to show them why they are wrong, which only plays into their position by allowing them to accuse you of just being arrogant before God and thus "proving" their case, you can simply point out that they don't even understand their own faith and point them to the proper view.

There is no need, then, in THIS thread to expound on my own view of morality. It is enough to simply point out that no educated Christian holds to the view that atheists cannot be moral--at least, not without severe qualifications of such a degree that require us to recognize that no human being can be moral. Obviously, that doesn't help their case, either.

Regarding your point on the interpretation of Romans 2:14ff, I would be shocked to hear anyone argue that atheists don't have morality and then put forward that view, because the two claims are mutually exclusive. How can a person say that atheists can't be moral, and then argue that you recognize morality and live by it even as you reject the source? If you can't be moral, then you can't live by a moral code inherent in all humans, even as you reject the source. If, though, you live by a moral code inherent in all humans, even as you reject its source, then we can't say that you can't be moral! If, then, you've actually had people use that interpretation, just call them on their own self-contradiction and be done with it.

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"I like many of Jac3510's posts, but to whom is this standard argument a standard?

Thank you, MP, for the kind remarks. I've found the people and conversation here stimulating and very fair, even though I've only been here a short time so far. To answer your question, as I've tried to make clear in this thread, the argument is standard in Christian academia. It is our job to teach it to the populace, much like we have to do with the rest of Christian doctrine. Sadly, many pastors these days are more concerned with teaching "relevant" sermons on things like how to better balance your checkbook and how to have a better marriage than they are on textual exposition.

I'm sure everyone on this board has heard of and read C. S. Lewis. I will use him as only ONE example, precisely because he is so popular. The entire basis of his Mere Christianity is that atheists can be moral, and, in fact, often are. If you deny that premise, then his entire argument goes out the window. Now, he was by no means the first to present his case. I mention it, again, only to illustrate how long what I am saying has been around. So the next time someone tells you that you aren't capable of being moral, quote Romans 2:14ff and throw Mere Christianity in their face and ask them if they have even bothered trying to understand their own faith before trying to explain it to you. If they haven't, I'm more than convinced that you would be highly capable of giving them an excellent education on the matter.

Quote from: "Jac3510"Better would be to point to Christian philosophers who openly reject the argument. Tell them that they are on the wrong side not only of modern Christian scholarship, but of Christian scholarship historically.

If they believe we are immoral then why would they accept this as an argument against it?

Why focus on Christianity as it ought to be practiced rather than as it is practiced?  In practice, pastors, priests, and ministers are out there teaching the "atheists are immoral" doctrine in their churches.  Yes, it's incorrect and they ought not to be but it has real-world consequences.  

To you, this is a cerebral exercise of learning and understanding.  You don't need to try to figure out how to keep the Christians from demonizing you so they can destroy you without guilt.  You are a Christian, you don't belong to the demonized group.  

Quote from: "Jac3510"Finally, the standard argument is not one held behind closed doors in seminaries. As I've already said, this is a standard argument that no one disagrees with.

No one disagrees with it?  Really?

Quote from: "Jac3510"Our job is to popularlize it so that those outside of the academy can get it right, too.

Yes, it is your job.

Quote from: "Jac3510"In any case, I know of absolutely no Christian philosopher or theologian who argues that atheists cannot be moral. Literally every single one of them, to a man, expressly rejects the position as absurd and anti-biblical.

Really, none?  Not one?  

Quote from: "Jac3510"Rather than justifying the popular argument about morality by arguing with them on its merits, point out that they are incorrect and have misunderstood their own argument. You can use any one of a million highly respected Christian theologians, apologists, and philosophers to prove your point. You "win the argument," and I have one less Christian making bad arguments to worry about.

You are totally missing the fact that they won't "listen" to us because they believe we are inherently immoral.  Here's an exercise for you.  Instead of putting this non-argument to a bunch of atheists on an atheist forum, go and pose as an atheist on a Christian forum.  Hunt for the "atheists have no morals" thread and resurrect it.  Then, posing as an atheist, give them the old "you're incorrect and have misunderstood your own argument" you've given here and see how well it works for you.  They have to "listen" to you for the non-argument to work.  If they've already got you pegged as an immoral atheist anything you say is tainted - until you can convince them you are not the demon they've painted you as.  I'm not joking, nor am I making light of this.  Try it.

Quote from: "Kylyssa"If they believe we are immoral then why would they accept this as an argument against it?

Why focus on Christianity as it ought to be practiced rather than as it is practiced? In practice, pastors, priests, and ministers are out there teaching the "atheists are immoral" doctrine in their churches. Yes, it's incorrect and they ought not to be but it has real-world consequences.

To you, this is a cerebral exercise of learning and understanding. You don't need to try to figure out how to keep the Christians from demonizing you so they can destroy you without guilt. You are a Christian, you don't belong to the demonized group.

Those people believe what they believe because someone else told them it is true. They haven't taken the time to study the text for themselves. Bear in mind, they base their beliefs on what they think the Bible says. My point to you is very practical, Kylyssa. If you really want them to stop demonizing you, then your best strategy is to point out that Christian scholars don't agree. If you continue to argue that they are simply wrong, then all they are going to hear is that you are disagreeing with the Bible, which will only reinforce the error in their mind.

QuoteNo one disagrees with it? Really?

Not in Christian academia.

QuoteYes, it is your job.

Do I detect a snarky tone, Kylyssa? I'm honestly asking, because it is easy to misconstrue intentions when all you have to look at are words. If so, may I ask what I have done to offend you, because all I've been doing is pointing out misunderstandings and offering you the best strategy to help everyone in this case. We all agree that Christians who argue that atheists can't be moral are a problem. Does it offend you that I am offering you a better way, from the perspective of someone who deals with it (and successfully, might I add) on a regular basis no less?

QuoteReally, none? Not one?

Really. Not one.

Perhaps they are out there. If you know of a theologian or philosopher who has made the argument that atheists can't be moral, feel free to let me know. Then I'd be able to say I know one. In any case, my basic point to you remains the same. The standard argument in Christian academia, which is not contested for the most part by atheistic philosophers, is that atheism provides no foundation for objective, transcendent moral statements. We don't argue that atheists can't be immoral.

QuoteYou are totally missing the fact that they won't "listen" to us because they believe we are inherently immoral. Here's an exercise for you. Instead of putting this non-argument to a bunch of atheists on an atheist forum, go and pose as an atheist on a Christian forum. Hunt for the "atheists have no morals" thread and resurrect it. Then, posing as an atheist, give them the old "you're incorrect and have misunderstood your own argument" you've given here and see how well it works for you. They have to "listen" to you for the non-argument to work. If they've already got you pegged as an immoral atheist anything you say is tainted - until you can convince them you are not the demon they've painted you as. I'm not joking, nor am I making light of this. Try it.

What makes you think I haven't done that? What makes you think I haven't had this basic discussion a hundred thousand times over? I told you in my last reply that the approach you are taking only reinforces their worldview. THAT is why they don't believe you. I am telling you, as a Christian, how to get through to Christians. I am telling you, as a Christian who has persuaded a great many Christians, both online and in person, on this issue, the best way to handle this.

Again, you can continue going about it like you always do. I wish you wouldn't, because it is a lose-lose situation. You lose because they keep demonizing you. I lose because I have more Christians out there making stupid arguments. I propose a win-win. Point out to them that they have misunderstood their own faith. Explain to them what the standard argument actually is. Quote Christian scholars they know and respect. Ask them to provide one such scholar who takes it as they do. They won't admit to your face that you are right (no one wants to admit they are wrong), but if they read the materials you point them to, and why wouldn't they, since they are Christian materials, they will drop the stupid argument, which is what we both want.

Your choice, my friend.

Quote from: "Kylyssa"You are totally missing the fact that they won't "listen" to us because they believe we are inherently immoral.  Here's an exercise for you.  Instead of putting this non-argument to a bunch of atheists on an atheist forum, go and pose as an atheist on a Christian forum.  Hunt for the "atheists have no morals" thread and resurrect it.  Then, posing as an atheist, give them the old "you're incorrect and have misunderstood your own argument" you've given here and see how well it works for you.  They have to "listen" to you for the non-argument to work.  If they've already got you pegged as an immoral atheist anything you say is tainted - until you can convince them you are not the demon they've painted you as.  I'm not joking, nor am I making light of this.  Try it.

There's a banhammer at the end of that hallway, I can vouch for that.  As soon as you even mention that you're an atheist, you have a bull's-eye on your back so far as the staff at the site is concerned.

Quote from: "Jac3510"Those people believe what they believe because someone else told them it is true. They haven't taken the time to study the text for themselves. Bear in mind, they base their beliefs on what they think the Bible says. My point to you is very practical, Kylyssa. If you really want them to stop demonizing you, then your best strategy is to point out that Christian scholars don't agree. If you continue to argue that they are simply wrong, then all they are going to hear is that you are disagreeing with the Bible, which will only reinforce the error in their mind.

Don't you think we need to change the belief that we are immoral first?  

Pretend you encounter an alien being for the first time.  Everyone you know and trust has said that aliens are evil and they only lie and twist words around.  They tell you not to listen to what aliens say.  Generations of people all make these assertions about aliens.  Are you going to listen to what the alien has to say or would you first want proof that he's not evil?

I can and have pointed out how some Christians' actions, stated beliefs or words don't match with what the Bible says, dozens of times if not hundreds.  They respond that you can't get anything out of the Bible if you read it as a skeptic.  They ignore what I'm saying and attack me as a source.  If I say that Biblical scholars disagree with them, they will simply take it as a tactic and a lie.  They'll claim I'm twisting words.  They can't get past the fact that I'm an atheist.

Quote from: "Jac3510"

Quote from: "Kylyssa"Yes, it is your job.

Do I detect a snarky tone, Kylyssa? I'm honestly asking, because it is easy to misconstrue intentions when all you have to look at are words. If so, may I ask what I have done to offend you, because all I've been doing is pointing out misunderstandings and offering you the best strategy to help everyone in this case. We all agree that Christians who argue that atheists can't be moral are a problem. Does it offend you that I am offering you a better way, from the perspective of someone who deals with it (and successfully, might I add) on a regular basis no less?

I'm very literal.  I'm agreeing that it is your job.  It's not my job to teach people how to be reasonable Christians, it's yours since you have chosen it.

Quote from: "Jac3510"

QuoteReally, none? Not one?

Really. Not one.

Perhaps they are out there. If you know of a theologian or philosopher who has made the argument that atheists can't be moral, feel free to let me know. Then I'd be able to say I know one. In any case, my basic point to you remains the same. The standard argument in Christian academia, which is not contested for the most part by atheistic philosophers, is that atheism provides no foundation for objective, transcendent moral statements. We don't argue that atheists can't be immoral.

Define theologian.  Many people who go to seminary claim the title.  Are they correct or not?

Quote from: "kylyssa"You are totally missing the fact that they won't "listen" to us because they believe we are inherently immoral. Here's an exercise for you. Instead of putting this non-argument to a bunch of atheists on an atheist forum, go and pose as an atheist on a Christian forum. Hunt for the "atheists have no morals" thread and resurrect it. Then, posing as an atheist, give them the old "you're incorrect and have misunderstood your own argument" you've given here and see how well it works for you. They have to "listen" to you for the non-argument to work. If they've already got you pegged as an immoral atheist anything you say is tainted - until you can convince them you are not the demon they've painted you as. I'm not joking, nor am I making light of this. Try it.

Quote from: "Jac3510"What makes you think I haven't done that?

Have you posed as an atheist to make that correction on a Christian forum - not a theology school forum or seminary forum - a standard, run-of-the-mill Christian forum?  I'm asking you outright - have you posed as an atheist to see how effective that approach is for atheists?

Quote from: "Jac3510"You lose because they keep demonizing you.

Don't they need to be disabused of their belief in atheists as immoral first?

Quote from: "Jac3510"I lose because I have more Christians out there making stupid arguments.

How so?  They make the assertion, I don't.  I don't increase the number of people making stupid statements by telling them they are wrong.  Perhaps you could decrease the number of Christians making stupid arguments by educating them?  If some kids are doing poorly in school you don't take aside the kids who aren't and tell them they need to respond to the kids doing poorly that they are doing poorly in school you take aside the kids having trouble in school and educate them.

Quote from: "Jac3510"I propose a win-win. Point out to them that they have misunderstood their own faith.

I honestly couldn't tell you how many times I've pointed that out in regard to other issues.  Why would it work with this issue when it doesn't seem to work with others?  

Quote from: "Jac3510"Quote Christian scholars they know and respect. Ask them to provide one such scholar who takes it as they do. They won't admit to your face that you are right (no one wants to admit they are wrong), but if they read the materials you point them to, and why wouldn't they, since they are Christian materials, they will drop the stupid argument, which is what we both want.

The problem is that few Christians I've interacted with know any Christian scholars - they won't know who I'm quoting and in the best circumstance they'll quote their own "scholar" like Pat Robertson or Ray Comfort.  In the worst circumstance they'll just disagree or say it's a lie.  It's how they react in discussions about evolution - I find a giant list of Christians who are scientists who support the theory of evolution and they parry back with some Creation "Science" expert who disagrees or they just say my scientists aren't real Christians.

I have another challenge for you.  Go out into the street in a medium sized city and ask people as they walk by - "What Christian scholars do you know and respect?"  

And even if we could educate average Christians about who their experts are "My experts are better than your experts" isn't a great argument for or against anything, anyway.

Quote from: "Jac3510"...Then I'd be able to say I know one. In any case, my basic point to you remains the same. The standard argument in Christian academia, which is not contested for the most part by atheistic philosophers, is that atheism provides no foundation for objective, transcendent moral statements. We don't argue that atheists can't be immoral.

Buddhism followed by over 600 million people is atheistic. Taoism followed by approximately 300,000 people is also atheistic in the western use of the word.  A third atheistic philosophy followed by millions of people is Confucianism.  These philosophies have a deep foundations of objective and transcendent moral statements.

When you make the statement that for the most part atheistic philosophers say there is no foundation for morality in atheism, you are overlooking the philosophers of Asia.

Quote from: "Kylyssa"Don't you think we need to change the belief that we are immoral first?

No. Look, this is their argument:

1. The Bible says atheists can't be moral
2. The Bible is true in everything it says
3. Therefore, it is true that atheists can't be moral

The argument is valid. It's obviously not sound. You can try to argue that (2) is false, but you won't get anywhere with these people because it is taken as a matter of faith. Your best bet is to challenge (1). The Bible doesn't say that. It says the opposite. For you to try to change their mind without challenging their argument would be to get them to claim the Bible is wrong. You will never get anywhere with that.

QuotePretend you encounter an alien being for the first time.  Everyone you know and trust has said that aliens are evil and they only lie and twist words around.  They tell you not to listen to what aliens say.  Generations of people all make these assertions about aliens.  Are you going to listen to what the alien has to say or would you first want proof that he's not evil?

I would assume he was evil because it is all I know. If he pulled out the very source I have been using, however, to claim that he is evil and showed me where, in that source, it said the exact opposite, I would be forced to choose between that source and the opinion of my friends. Further, if the alien pointed to an authority I highly respected on alien morality and showed me where he himself expressly repudiated my view and explained why it was wrong, I would be forced to change my view.

QuoteI can and have pointed out how some Christians' actions, stated beliefs or words don't match with what the Bible says, dozens of times if not hundreds.  They respond that you can't get anything out of the Bible if you read it as a skeptic.  They ignore what I'm saying and attack me as a source.  If I say that Biblical scholars disagree with them, they will simply take it as a tactic and a lie.  They'll claim I'm twisting words.  They can't get past the fact that I'm an atheist.

That is because you as an atheist are trying to convince them. Show them C. S. Lewis. Show the William Lane Craig. Show the Gary Habermaus. Show them J. P. Moreland, John Frame, Norman Geisler, or any one of a hundred others. Make them argue with their own theologians, not with you. You have no credibility with them. Those people do.

QuoteDefine theologian.  Many people who go to seminary claim the title.  Are they correct or not?

Going to seminary doesn't make you a theologian. Seminaries, for the most part, are designed to train a person in pastoral ministry. Seminary grads get some theological education. Unless they received a Ph.D in theology, they are likely not a theologian.

For the purposes of our discussion, I'll define a theologian as a person with a terminal degree in theology or a related field whose profession is to research and teach theological studies in an academic setting. Respected theologians are typically the ones who are published my the academic houses of major Christian publishing groups (i..e, Baker, Zondervan, IVP, Nelson, etc.).

Pastors who say that atheists can't be moral are wrong. Now, with that said, honestly, how many M.Div grads have you had on here making this argument?

QuoteHave you posed as an atheist to make that correction on a Christian forum - not a theology school forum or seminary forum - a standard, run-of-the-mill Christian forum?  I'm asking you outright - have you posed as an atheist to see how effective that approach is for atheists?

Have I posed as an atheist? No. That would be dishonest. Have I seen atheists point these things out successfully in these venues? Yes, I have. I don't know if you read my intro thread, but I have many, many years of discussion boards under my belt. I've seen everything under the sun. This hardly new.

QuoteDon't they need to be disabused of their belief in atheists as immoral first?

See my original comments on this. You are putting the cart before the horse, logically speaking.

QuoteHow so?  They make the assertion, I don't.  I don't increase the number of people making stupid statements by telling them they are wrong.  Perhaps you could decrease the number of Christians making stupid arguments by educating them?  If some kids are doing poorly in school you don't take aside the kids who aren't and tell them they need to respond to the kids doing poorly that they are doing poorly in school you take aside the kids having trouble in school and educate them.

I lose because a Christian is making stupid arguments who doesn't need to be.

I noticed you never answered my question from before. Have you not ever corrected a religious person on what their own book teaches? Why would you do that if it isn't your job at all? Don't you agree that everyone wins when Christians stop making this blatantly false argument?

QuoteI honestly couldn't tell you how many times I've pointed that out in regard to other issues.  Why would it work with this issue when it doesn't seem to work with others?

Too vague. I can't make a comparison without specific examples. But based on how the conversation has gone so far, if your method is to try to get them to admit that they are wrong without challenging their interpretation of Scripture by appealing to authorities they trust, then, again, you are just effectively asking them to deny the Bible's veracity. That's a waste of time.

QuoteThe problem is that few Christians I've interacted with know any Christian scholars - they won't know who I'm quoting and in the best circumstance they'll quote their own "scholar" like Pat Robertson or Ray Comfort.  In the worst circumstance they'll just disagree or say it's a lie.  It's how they react in discussions about evolution - I find a giant list of Christians who are scientists who support the theory of evolution and they parry back with some Creation "Science" expert who disagrees or they just say my scientists aren't real Christians.

I have another challenge for you.  Go out into the street in a medium sized city and ask people as they walk by - "What Christian scholars do you know and respect?"  
I assume by the quotation marks that you recognize that those men are not scholars. As far as your challenge goes, rather than asking them to name scholars--they won't be able to--you ask them, "Have you ever heard of C. S. Lewis/J. P. Moreland/Francis Schaeffer/Charles Ryrie/B. B. Warfield/etc.?" Most people will respond affirmatively to that question. Then you pull out those sources.

QuoteAnd even if we could educate average Christians about who their experts are "My experts are better than your experts" isn't a great argument for or against anything, anyway.

I'm not telling you to make an appeal to authority to prove your point. What I am trying to help you see is that those people base their theological views on what men like that have said the Bible means. The moment you make it YOUR argument, you've done the very thing I am telling you is driving people away. As an atheist, you have no credibility. You can complain about why that shouldn't be the case all day long, but that's just the fact. So you can argue with them as an atheist and just further reinforce their belief, or, you can argue on their own turf. You can point out that the very people who they get their theology from don't read the Bible the way they do.

My point is VERY simple, despite all these words:

Make the argument between them and Christian scholars. If you make it between you and them, you lose, because you are the "evil infidel."

Quote from: "notself"

Quote from: "Jac3510"...Then I'd be able to say I know one. In any case, my basic point to you remains the same. The standard argument in Christian academia, which is not contested for the most part by atheistic philosophers, is that atheism provides no foundation for objective, transcendent moral statements. We don't argue that atheists can't be immoral.

Buddhism followed by over 600 million people is atheistic. Taoism followed by approximately 300,000 people is also atheistic in the western use of the word.  A third atheistic philosophy followed by millions of people is Confucianism.  These philosophies have a deep foundations of objective and transcendent moral statements.

When you make the statement that for the most part atheistic philosophers say there is no foundation for morality in atheism, you are overlooking the philosophers of Asia.

I'm not familiar enough with Buddhism or Taoism to comment with any kind of confidence, but I can make two general observations:

1. Eastern religion as a whole, being pantheistic, doesn't make moral judgments in the same sense that Western culture does. There is, strictly speaking, no such thing as "right" and "wrong." Everything is ultimately a matter of perspective.
2. It is logically impossible to ground objective morality without appealing to the superhuman. If you want to discuss this in detail, let's open another thread on it. Just note that I am NOT saying that atheists can't be moral; I'm NOT saying they can't know right from wrong. I'm saying that, without reference to God, objective moral values is a meaningless concept. I can quote more than a few atheist philosophers who strongly prove the point if you like . . . in another thread, of course.

Quote from: "Jac3510"I'm not familiar enough with Buddhism or Taoism to comment with any kind of confidence, but I can make two general observations:
1. Eastern religion as a whole, being pantheistic, doesn't make moral judgments in the same sense that Western culture does. There is, strictly speaking, no such thing as "right" and "wrong." Everything is ultimately a matter of perspective.
2. It is logically impossible to ground objective morality without appealing to the superhuman. If you want to discuss this in detail, let's open another thread on it. Just note that I am NOT saying that atheists can't be moral; I'm NOT saying they can't know right from wrong. I'm saying that, without reference to God, objective moral values is a meaningless concept. I can quote more than a few atheist philosophers who strongly prove the point if you like . . . in another thread, of course.

You say you are not familiar with Buddhism or Taoism yet you assert that "Eastern religion as a whole is pantheistic."  Perhaps it would help if you knew more about Asian religions.  You are correct that Asian religions do not make moral judgements in the same way Western culture does.  By culture I assume you mean religious culture.  Western religious culture is based on the concept of sin and in particular Original Sin.  Asian religions and Buddhism in particular are based on skillful and unskillful behavior.  From this point on I will be speaking from the Buddhist POV since I am most familiar with that moral philosophy.  

There are three aspects of the Noble Eightfold Path, the structure of Buddhist teaching.  They are morality, concentration and wisdom.  Morality (Sila) is based on precepts, some types of Buddhism have more but all contain these five.  Rather than commandments these precepts are undertaken by those who wish to lead a moral life.  I will have to continue in the next post.

As to Pascal's Wager, it is invalid as hell is not falsifiable.  It is not a place that any of us can spontaneously go to.  If Pascal wagered that we should put our bet on Paris or New York, the wager has merits because I can go to Paris and New York.

 I ask any Christian or anyone for that matter, who isn't selling a book for profit, to honestly tell me that you have been to a literal hell.  That is the very hell that is being shouted from pulpits from Sunday to Sunday and a Wednesday in between.  I mean have gone to it, not in some dream or fantasy, but you walked through a pair of doors, felt the heat, heard the screams, tasted the blood in the air.

Have you actually met the demons who torment the souls?  Shook their hands and asked for their phone number?  If you have can I have their number so I can ask them a few questions about booking room in hell?

I am being facetious yes, but a belief in something does not make it true.  It won't be true even if a single person believes it or a billion people believe it.  What makes anything true, or truer is an actual physical reality.  When someone tells me that they've been to hell... and then follow that with words like Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya, Palestine, or Rwanda.  I  am going to believe them.  Those places are in the news, people have been there and lived to tell it, they bring pictures of it, the number of people are in the thousands and millions.

Yet, this otherworldly hell... where is the evidence?  Where are the real witnesses?  Where are the pictures, and voice recordings?  All we have to go by is that a billion people believe in it.

Pascal wager is simply a thought tool that is an Appeal to an Expert.  It is used to bolster a case or offered  as a proof.

This is a follow up to my previous post and goes into the moral code of Buddhism which is also found in various forms in the other great atheistic moral philosophies.
The five precepts are as follows:
I will undertake to refrain from killing any sentient being.
I will undertake to refrain from taking what is not freely given.
I will undertake to refrain from wrong speech.
I will undertake to refrain from sexual misconduct.
I will undertake to refrain from intoxicants which lead to heedlessness.

In addition there are teachings on virtue and the reasons for virtue.  Here is a link to a sutta that is quite short but too long to post here.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an11/an11.001.than.html)

Here is a link to the Dhammapada one of the most beloved books in the canon and some snips from it.
5. Hatred is never appeased by hatred in this world. By non-hatred alone is hatred appeased. This is a law eternal.
25. By effort and heedfulness, discipline and self-mastery, let the wise one make for himself an island which no flood can overwhelm.
50. Let none find fault with others; let none see the omissions and commissions of others. But let one see one's own acts, done and undone.
55. Of all the fragrances â€" sandal, tagara, blue lotus and jasmine â€" the fragrance of virtue is the sweetest.
80. Irrigators regulate the rivers; fletchers straighten the arrow shaft; carpenters shape the wood; the wise control themselves.
110. Better it is to live one day virtuous and meditative than to live a hundred years immoral and uncontrolled.

There is much more but I think you get the idea.  One is virtuous because it leads to peace and contentment.

notself,

If you want to start another thread on Buddhism and morality, I'll be more than happy to pursue the discussion with you there. To do that in this thread would take it further off topic than it has already been taken. Nothing you said, though, has anything to do with objective moral foundations.

Quote from: "Jac3510"notself,

If you want to start another thread on Buddhism and morality, I'll be more than happy to pursue the discussion with you there. To do that in this thread would take it further off topic than it has already been taken. Nothing you said, though, has anything to do with objective moral foundations.

I was responding to your statement that atheism does not have a moral foundation from which to act.  I am not interested in discussing Buddhism per se.  However, if you are interested, here is an index by subject matter.  http://www.accesstoinsight.org/index-subject.html (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/index-subject.html)

Please give an example of an objective moral foundation.  It is my understanding that Christians look to a god for moral guidance.  Since the concept of god is not provable but rather based on faith, the moral ground for Christianity does not meet the definition of objective:
1. Of or having to do with a material object.
2. Having actual existence or reality.
3.
a. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic. See Synonyms at fair1.
b. Based on observable phenomena; presented factually: an objective appraisal.

Mods - if you think this needs to be split off into its own thread, please feel free to do so.

Quote from: "notself"

Quote from: "Jac3510"notself,

If you want to start another thread on Buddhism and morality, I'll be more than happy to pursue the discussion with you there. To do that in this thread would take it further off topic than it has already been taken. Nothing you said, though, has anything to do with objective moral foundations.

I was responding to your statement that atheism does not have a moral foundation from which to act.  I am not interested in discussing Buddhism per se.  However, if you are interested, here is an index by subject matter.  http://www.accesstoinsight.org/index-subject.html (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/index-subject.html)

Please give an example of an objective moral foundation.  It is my understanding that Christians look to a god for moral guidance.  Since the concept of god is not provable but rather based on faith, the moral ground for Christianity does not meet the definition of objective:
1. Of or having to do with a material object.
2. Having actual existence or reality.
3.
a. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic. See Synonyms at fair1.
b. Based on observable phenomena; presented factually: an objective appraisal.

Christians don't look to God for moral guidance anymore than they look to God for the answer to math questions--not, anyway, if morality is objective. I'll leave aside for now the question of whether or not God is provable as it has nothing to do with our discussion.

The word "objective" in the philosophical sense stands opposed to "subjective." Something is subjective if it is rooted in personal experience, views, ideas, etc. Thus, all opinion, by definition, is purely subjective. My weight is not subjective. It is an objective fact, being rooted in something other than my own ideas, experiences, beliefs, etc.

Let's say a Christian and atheist both say "Raping children is wrong." The question is, "What do you mean by wrong?" If it is an objective statement, you are saying, "'Wrongness' is a concept that is inherent in the essence of the act of raping children and thus is true regardless of whether or not anyone recognizes it." If it is subjective, however, you are saying, "'Wrongness' is a concept that is predicated to the act of raping children in the sense that it violates my values." In other words, if when you say that raping children is wrong, you are only speaking of that which violates your own value system, the statement is inherently subjective, not objective. Even if you extend your basis to society's value system, the statement is still subjective, because 'wrongness' is not predicated directly to the essence of the thing itself.

Put still differently, from an analytical perspective, "wrongness" can be analyzed from the very concept/essence of rape only if the term is objective; if it is subjective, the wrongness is predicated to it via a moral agent and is thus not inherent in the thing itself.

Now, suppose that you say that X is wrong and I say that it is right or perhaps just neutral. The only way for one of us to be incorrect about the statement is if morality is objective. If it is subjective, then neither of us are right or wrong. We are simply expressing our opinions. Now, this is the important point: just because we agree on a moral statement does not make that statement objective. You and I may both agree that vanilla ice cream is the best flavor, but that does not mean that "best flavor" is inherent in the concept of vanilla. It just means that you and I have the same opinion!

When a Christian says that morality is objective, he is saying that certain things really are right and wrong whether or not anyone--including himself--agrees or disagrees. What can we root this statement in, though? It cannot be rooted in our opinion of it, because that would just make it subjective. The same is true for societal opinion. We can't root it in our values, because our values are subjective. If we say, for instance, that rape is wrong because it harms the species, we are assuming the value of the good of the species. Again, you and I may agree on that value, but agreeing on a value doesn't make something objective.

Throughout history, there have been three roots proposed for objective morality: God's Command, Morality itself, and God's nature. The first two are the illustrated by Socrates' Euthyphro Dilemma. If something is right or wrong because God commands it, then rightness or wrongness, though objective, would be arbitrary in God's mind. We would seem to be able to challenge God's view of morality, which would make for all the difficult discussions about God and morality that we have on boards like this. On the other hand, if something is right or wrong and God simply recognizes it, and thus commands or forbids it, that seems to explain how it is that we feel we can hold God accountable to moral standards, but the problem then is that God Himself is subject to moral laws, and the question of the root of this objectivity is still in question. The best answer is that morality is rooted not in God's command nor anything outside of Him that He recognizes, but rather, it is rooted in His very nature. God forbids murder because it is inconsistent with His nature, etc.

What this means is that morality is rooted in something outside of human nature. It is something that we recognize and live with as much as we recognize and live with any other part of reality. Morality is objective in this view.

IN CONCLUSION

I'm not arguing in this thread that God exists and that morality actually is objective. What I am arguing is that, from a strictly logical perspective, if you remove God from the equation, there is no possible grounding for morality outside of the human experience, which makes morality strictly subjective and a matter of mere opinion, be that personal or societal. This is not a controversial statement among philosophers, Christian or not. On the contrary, this has been the entire mission of ethics sense the Enlightenment -- to build a moral system out of the subjective human experience, and for this reason, consequentialism is almost always the starting point (though the virtues have started making a come back in recent years).

I've been entirely too long in this post, but I hope you see what philosophers mean when they talk about objective morality. Things like the Golden Rule, which most people agree on, is not objective in and of itself. It is only objective if it is true even though people do disagree with it. The only way for that to be the case is if we invoke a God in whose nature (or command) we can root morality. Again, I cannot emphasize enough to you how non-controversial this is. It is almost tautological. If morality is rooted in the human experience, it is subjective. There's just no way to have a morality not rooted in human experience (that is, an objective morality) without invoking God, for no other reason that the very being in which morality is rooted becomes the very definition of what we call God, in one sense or another.

Thank you for your explanation.  

You say that morality must be rooted in a god to be objective.  However, to those of us who think god is a human idea, objective morality does not exist.

Quote from: "notself"Thank you for your explanation.  

You say that morality must be rooted in a god to be objective.  However, to those of us who think god is a human idea, objective morality does not exist.

Not to be nitpicky, but your belief or not in God has no bearing on whether or not objective morality exists. If objective morality exists, then it is a logical consequence that God must exist, regardless of your opinion.

What you probably mean here is that for those of you who don't believe in God, you simply don't believe in objective morality. And, of course, I would agree. You are forced to define morality in strictly subjective terms (anti-realism; as opposed to moral realism). But that's been my entire point in this entire thread. The Christian argument is NOT that atheists cannot be moral. Since we believe that morality really is objective, we think that you CAN be moral. When you recognize that slavery is wrong, you are recognizing not just your own preference, but the way reality actually is. You are recognizing that it really is wrong to enslave people! Our point is that you have no objective basis for claiming that slavery is wrong. You have plenty of subjective basis. You have plenty of personal and societal values that you can recognize that slavery conflicts with. But you have no objective foundations for the claim.

THAT is the argument that theists ought to be using. The question then can move on to whether or not morality really is objective or not. That's an honest question that is open for discussion. It is the root of the moral argument for God's existence as proposed by Lewis, Frame, Craig, Moreland, Aquinas, Plantinga, and a host of others. Christians ought NOT be saying that atheists cannot be moral. That's just stupid and plain unbiblical.

I find the concept of objective morality coming from a god very difficult to accept for a few reasons.

If god is a sentient being and says what is good and what is bad, that's subjective morality.

God doesn't tell people what is good and bad, people say what god says is good and bad, so it's still subjective.

Quote from: "Davin"I find the concept of objective morality coming from a god very difficult to accept for a few reasons.

If god is a sentient being and says what is good and what is bad, that's subjective morality.

God doesn't tell people what is good and bad, people say what god says is good and bad, so it's still subjective.

In your view, morality would be subjective from God's point of view, but not from ours. Theoretically, He could have made the world a million different ways. A foot could have been another length. I could have weighed something else (or nothing at all). That God chose to make the world this way rather than that was His subjective choice. That doesn't change the fact that this reality,for us, is still objective.

But more to the point, most (not all, but definitely most) Christian theologians and philosophers root morality NOT in God's command, but in His nature. He commands and forbids according to what He already is. Thus, morality is just as objective as His own existence. In fact, if you want to press this further and get into the issues of the nature of being and how it relates to morality and ultimately to divine simplicity, we can show that God's existence and His morality are exactly the same thing (I know that sounds odd - feel free to do some quick Googling on divine simplicity. Full disclosure: simplicity is the basis of classical theism as most fully articulated by Thomas Aquinas; it is deeply unpopular among theologians today for reasons I won't get into here, unless asked).

Anyway, you are right that God does not tell people what is right or wrong. It is a part of the very fabric of reality. We discover it, just like we discover things like height, width, and weight. There is a sense in which morality is subjective. When I say, "I think abortion is wrong," I am saying something about what I personally believe. That is a subjective statement. I am also, however, saying that I believe something is true about something else, which refers to an objective reality.

Of course, if there's no God, then I only think I'm referring to an objective reality. In real reality, the objective morality I am referring to does not exist, so I am referring to nothing. I only think I am making an objective statement when, in fact, my statement is purely subjective. So that is the nature of the debate. Is morality objective or not? If yes, God exists. If not . . . well . . . at least the Christian God doesn't exist.

Yes, Pascal's wager does not specify whether the belief in god should be in the Christian god.  So one could believe in another god, Durga for example, and be covered by the wager.

Quote from: "Jac3510"notself,

If you want to start another thread on Buddhism and morality, I'll be more than happy to pursue the discussion with you there. To do that in this thread would take it further off topic than it has already been taken. Nothing you said, though, has anything to do with objective moral foundations.

That's because morality is inherently subjective, given the unevidenced assertion of an after-life punishment.  Even with that, it is still subjective: Hell is populated, in your theology, with people judged by your god.

Quote from: "Jac3510"

Quote from: "philosoraptor"

Quote from: "Jac3510"And philosoraptor, the standard argument is not that atheists cannot be moral.

Actually, yes it is.  Myself (and I'm sure others here) get it from a lot of so-called Christians (and sometimes people of other faiths).  But then again, it's not as if that many Christians are all that familiar with the Bible to know what it says about morality-they just assume those without a belief in God couldn't possibly have a system of morals.  I think you'd be surprised how many atheists have more knowledge of the Bible than your average Christian.  Either way, it's still a very common assumption that atheists can't be moral because they don't believe in God.

No, it isn't. It may be the popular argument you keep getting, but just because a lot of people repeat it doesn't make it the standard. The standard is that which as been established by the philosophical community. Given its popularity in the literature, both professional and popular, there is no excuse for anyone not to be familiar with it who has claimed to study the issue at all.

Further, I think you shouldn't assume what I would or would not be surprised by. It seems to me that rather than focusing on what uneducated (well intentioned or not) Christians argue, you should focus on the strongest form of the position as it is properly advocated. In other words, the standard argument, at minimum.

Jac

What you say above is probably right based on the fact that a lot of other stuff you have written has also bee reasoned and well thought out and accurate. However I think that there can be both an academically correct answer and a popularist wrong answer. And this is what we see on theist and atheist forums alike. The popularist majority view expressed by the majority of theists that post on forums (note the audience caveat as my majority experience of theists is on forums) is that atheists can not be moral. Unfortunately they who shout loudest and longest are often those that get listened to. So in a very pragmatic sense in a day-to-day environment it would appear to me that the view of most theists is that atheists can not be truly moral.

Chris

Quote from: "Jac3510"

Quote from: "Davin"I find the concept of objective morality coming from a god very difficult to accept for a few reasons.

If god is a sentient being and says what is good and what is bad, that's subjective morality.

God doesn't tell people what is good and bad, people say what god says is good and bad, so it's still subjective.

In your view, morality would be subjective from God's point of view, but not from ours. Theoretically, He could have made the world a million different ways. A foot could have been another length. I could have weighed something else (or nothing at all). That God chose to make the world this way rather than that was His subjective choice. That doesn't change the fact that this reality,for us, is still objective.

A foot or a meter or any measurement was created by man. What we decide to use to measure something has no objective purpose, it's merely used to describe things to other people using a standard that the other person agrees on. It doesn't take a god creating things differently, just the people that created and use the measurement to change how they measure it. The thing being measured is objective, the measurement is subjective.

Quote from: "Jac3510"But more to the point, most (not all, but definitely most) Christian theologians and philosophers root morality NOT in God's command, but in His nature. He commands and forbids according to what He already is. Thus, morality is just as objective as His own existence. In fact, if you want to press this further and get into the issues of the nature of being and how it relates to morality and ultimately to divine simplicity, we can show that God's existence and His morality are exactly the same thing (I know that sounds odd - feel free to do some quick Googling on divine simplicity. Full disclosure: simplicity is the basis of classical theism as most fully articulated by Thomas Aquinas; it is deeply unpopular among theologians today for reasons I won't get into here, unless asked).

I'm not sure what you're saying here. It looks as if you're saying that this god has no sentience over morality which makes attributing it to the god meaningless because it's beyond the gods control, or that god is in control over it which would make it subjective.

Quote from: "Jac3510"Anyway, you are right that God does not tell people what is right or wrong. It is a part of the very fabric of reality. We discover it, just like we discover things like height, width, and weight. There is a sense in which morality is subjective. When I say, "I think abortion is wrong," I am saying something about what I personally believe. That is a subjective statement. I am also, however, saying that I believe something is true about something else, which refers to an objective reality.

What evidence is there for objective morality that we can discover? So far morality, even those morals derived from people of the same religion, are far from consistent which shows that the evidence is against objective morality.

Quote from: "Jac3510"Of course, if there's no God, then I only think I'm referring to an objective reality. In real reality, the objective morality I am referring to does not exist, so I am referring to nothing. I only think I am making an objective statement when, in fact, my statement is purely subjective. So that is the nature of the debate. Is morality objective or not? If yes, God exists. If not . . . well . . . at least the Christian God doesn't exist.

I think that objective morality would be independent of a god existing, because if it was truly objective, then no sentient being (god included) would have a say over it. So if objective morality exists, then no god is dependent on it (or it dependent on a god), for it to be true.

Quote from: "Jac3510"No, it isn't. It may be the popular argument you keep getting, but just because a lot of people repeat it doesn't make it the standard. The standard is that which as been established by the philosophical community. Given its popularity in the literature, both professional and popular, there is no excuse for anyone not to be familiar with it who has claimed to study the issue at all.

Further, I think you shouldn't assume what I would or would not be surprised by. It seems to me that rather than focusing on what uneducated (well intentioned or not) Christians argue, you should focus on the strongest form of the position as it is properly advocated. In other words, the standard argument, at minimum.

As a programmer, I understand the difference between what is popular and what is the standard. There are many programming standards, however so few people actually follow them. I'm not just talking about the way the code is structured but what the code does. There is no browser that is fully standards compliant while there are several browsers. Websites would certainly get created faster, work better, load faster and be easier to fix if all browsers followed the standards. However because of the popularity of the browsers, arguing that there is a standard is meaningless because I still have to deal with the popularity. And don't even get me started on desktop programming for Windows, Microsoft doesn't even follow their own standards.

Quote from: "Jac3510"I noticed you never answered my question from before. Have you not ever corrected a religious person on what their own book teaches? Why would you do that if it isn't your job at all?

Survival.  I'd like to live unmolested by Christians without having to hide who I am.  

I have been beaten and abused by Christians who believed this stupid concept.  Anyone willing to kick me in the face for being an atheist isn't going to listen to my statements about theologians they've never heard of.  Anyone scratching "Die Atheist Cunt!" into my car or firing people for being Pagans (a couple of friends) or agnostics (a dear friend) isn't going to hear anything I say about the Bible.  They aren't going to hear anything I say about respected theologians either.  


This is all so fucking cerebral for you.  It isn't for some of us who live in areas full of Christians of the sort that would find out you were atheist and then call protective services because you don't take your kid to church or they might vandalize your car or home or get you fired from your job.  In one gory case, Christians killed and mutilated a child's pet goat when his mother was outed as atheist.  You honestly think those villagers with pitchforks are going to care what comes out of our mouths?  They wouldn't even listen to you and, as a Christian, they consider you to be human.

When I slipped once and said something at work about a science news piece about 50,000 year old dog DNA found in South America people were still of the impression that I was a Christian (hey, atheists have to eat, too, and we don't like being abused or vandalized, either) but I was permanently snubbed for talking about "evolution years" at work.  When I tried to talk my way out of it by explaining that the Bible doesn't say the earth is 6,000 years old they just got more upset with me.  I suggested they ask their husbands, both studying theology at Calvin College.  Who would they trust more than their husbands?

I've only given a very, very few examples of how our encounters with Christians aware of us not being Christians have gone down badly.

I live in Grand Rapids, Michigan, home of no fewer than 11 Bible Colleges and half the people I talk to still don't even know who CS Lewis is or even bloody freaking heard of Zondervan and Zondervan publishing is right here in Grand Rapids and it's huge.  Half the contemporary Christian theologians I've heard of work or have worked at or with Zondervan because it's in our bloody newspaper.  Christian book stores are more common than secular book stores here.  They outnumber them at least three to one, not counting college bookstores for the Bible colleges in the area.  I'm three blocks from the nearest Christian bookstore and six blocks from that one is another and up the street about half a mile is another.  I've been in many of them and behind the latest pop Christian publication and the loads of trinkets are a few shelves of Christian theology books.  If anyone ought to know about Christian theology, it ought to be the people who live here.  But, for the most part, they don't.

I write on several webpages.  I write about what I believe as an atheist and I answer common questions about being an atheist.  I get approximately one Christian death threat per month.  They are usually pretty generic but sometimes they are creepy enough that I report them to the FBI.  I get between three and seven threats of violence (not including the death threat) or weird threats regarding those pages per month.  I get between ten and thirty messages each month telling me I'm a bad person and that I'm going to hell.  The most vicious Christian threats come in regard to the pages which mention Christianity as a cause of teen homelessness in America.  

I'm rambling and yes, I'm very irritated.  I'm irritated because you are suggesting we play games of semantics rather than providing education.  Meanwhile, people are still getting hurt.  "Look, I'm human, too" is more valuable than "look at what I'm saying these experts you don't know say about your religion."

Quote from: "Tank"Jac

What you say above is probably right based on the fact that a lot of other stuff you have written has also bee reasoned and well thought out and accurate. However I think that there can be both an academically correct answer and a popularist wrong answer. And this is what we see on theist and atheist forums alike. The popularist majority view expressed by the majority of theists that post on forums (note the audience caveat as my majority experience of theists is on forums) is that atheists can not be moral. Unfortunately they who shout loudest and longest are often those that get listened to. So in a very pragmatic sense in a day-to-day environment it would appear to me that the view of most theists is that atheists can not be truly moral.

Chris

This is all very true. I think I started off on the wrong foot by making too strong of a distinction between academic standards and popular rhetoric. Davin is correct in his programming analogy, in that nothing is ever purely standard.

The only point I am trying to make is exceedingly practical. You will encounter the popular argument more often than the standard. The only reason I brought up the latter was to suggest a better method in handling it. When you encounter a Christian who thinks the Bible says that atheists cannot be moral, you cannot try to convince them that you can be moral. Do you see that to make that argument is to try to get them to admit that you are right and the Bible is wrong? Can you see the emotional effect that has on the misinformed Christian? You are fighting a losing battle that way. Far superior is to politely show them that the people who they do trust, which obviously isn't you, don't agree with them. That's all I am saying. I promise you, that works. Perfectly? Of course not. No method of argument is perfect, because argument presumes you are discussing things with human beings, and human beings are not strictly rational creatures in which you supply certain input and are guaranteed a corresponding output. If only it were that easy! But some methods are more effective in general than others, and I believe I've explained why the method I'm suggesting here is more beneficial to everyone involved.

I don't know what else to really say on the matter. I feel like I'm beginning to repeat myself, and that's never very productive. I think I've made my case as clearly as I can, and each person is more than capable of coming to their own conclusions regarding the strengths and weaknesses of the approach I advocate as compared with trying to convince such people that the Bible is wrong. I'm content to leave things as they are.

Kylyssa, this is obviously a deeply emotional issue for you. I am sorry for your experiences and I can understand how they would color your take on things. For what it is worth, I do understand your position, and I promise you that this is no more purely intellectual with me than it is purely emotional with you. Let's just leave it here and trust that both of us want, at least on some level, the same thing as far as this issue goes.

edit:

Davin, I do later want to offer some specific replies to your questions on objective morality. Let me open a new thread on it in the near future. Your questions are very appropriate, important, and need to be given more than a glossing over.

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsphotos.ak.fbcdn.net%2Fhphotos-ak-ash2%2Fhs150.ash2%2F40836_151231894886892_100000002465938_495571_5350501_n.jpg&hash=d85c86d7f04ec14e4748c95fe6081586c5480a04)

Quote from: "Jac3510"The only point I am trying to make is exceedingly practical. You will encounter the popular argument more often than the standard. The only reason I brought up the latter was to suggest a better method in handling it.

Totally understand what you were getting at.

Quote from: "Jac3510"notself,

If you want to start another thread on Buddhism and morality, I'll be more than happy to pursue the discussion with you there. To do that in this thread would take it further off topic than it has already been taken. Nothing you said, though, has anything to do with objective moral foundations.

Let me start off by saying you seem to be one of the smartest Christians I have ever encountered. Your arguments are intelligent, and well thought out. I think a lot of people think about god in limiting terms (i.e. Constrain it to what is described in the Bible) rather that the infinite thing God is supposed to be.

But I'm afraid that you are incorrect in your assertion that atheists don't have any grounds to state that morality is objective.  I will grant that if God is infinite (and actually real), then it's assertions of morality are not subjective at all, but rather an inescapable construct of the universe. Any conscious thing that really held dominion over all the universe would, in fact, have a will that sets itself into an inevitable construct of reality. Conformation to this will would not be a matter of subjective opinion, but rather like obeying the law of gravity.  It's simply the nature of the universe, it's been set, and there is no breaking it.

But the fact that there are people who do things that we consider to be immoral is proof that our morals are not set by an omnipotent and infinite consciousness.  If God asserted something to be "right" then that thing would be the absolute inevitability of conscious behavior. No thing would be able to escape moral behavior, because the universe itself would have been set entirely against it. And no one could exit this moral construct any more than they could defy gravity.

And I've heard the Free Will argument. God didn't think we could be happy if we were slaves to his will, so he gave us all the choice as to whether or not to obey his commands.  Where this argument falls apart is that, God created happiness. Could he not, just as easily, made it so that we could only be happy if we were slaves? Or made it so that we do have a choice, but are inherently good people, and therefore always choose to do good?  Just something to think about.

But there is a grounds to say that morality is objective without god. Notself was doing a rather good job at explaining the Buddhist view of this (including no god), and you shot him down by saying it was irrelevant. I don't know, that just annoys me.

KerbertX,

Thanks for the kind remarks. Let me clarify why I said notself's comments explaining Buddhism were irrelevant. Whether I agree or disagree with the statements themselves doesn't matter, because that would only show an agreement or disagreement on our opinions. The issue, however, is the nature of morality itself. How to discover what is moral and what is immoral is an epistemological question. Whether or not morality is objective or subjective is an ontological question. A very important, and basic, philosophical fact to always keep before us is that epistemology does not determine ontology. I cannot tell you how many people have gotten off track, in my opinion, by missing that one little thing . . .

In other words, the methodology we use to discover what something is, is not the same thing as the nature of the thing we are discovering. We have to keep very separate the issues of moral epistemology--how we know what is right and wrong--and moral ontology--what is the nature of morality. My assertions are focused on the latter. Notself's assertions, which I see as extremely valuable and very much worth considering, relate to the former and need to be considered in that context. We couldn't do them justice by applying them to my point.

Again, I'm going to be making a thread on this in the very near future. I'm visiting family in south FL now, but I'll be driving home tomorrow. Hopefully, I can offer some deeper and more appropriate explanations Tuesday night or Wednesday morning.

Sorry for the confusion if I wasn't clear on that!

Quote from: "Jac3510"It may be the popular argument you keep getting, but just because a lot of people repeat it doesn't make it the standard. The standard is that which as been established by the philosophical community. Given its popularity in the literature, both professional and popular, there is no excuse for anyone not to be familiar with it who has claimed to study the issue at all.

Here, I have to heartily disagree with you.  The philosophical community is a lot smaller than the world of lay people, so to claim that the standard set by one little community is the general standard for everyone else is somewhat ridiculous.  It's also silly to imply that the theist viewpoint is more dominant in the philosophical community than the atheist viewpoint-I'd say it's probably more 50/50 than anything.  For every philosopher arguing a god's existence, there is one arguing against it.  Perhaps you don't mean to imply that the theist viewpoint is the standard, but it certainly seems that way.

This is precisely why I debate with myself anymore on whether true ethics can exist with religious belief. The reward/punishment system of morality is motivated by self-interest, not compassion or evaluation of relative harm caused by various options.

Quote from: "AntigoneRisen"This is precisely why I debate with myself anymore on whether true ethics can exist with religious belief. The reward/punishment system of morality is motivated by self-interest, not compassion or evaluation of relative harm caused by various options.

Most religious systems have some sort of Golden Rule that would be a teaching on relative harm. I have no idea what "true ethics or true morality" is or whether such a thing can exist or how it can be proved to exist.  Some philosophies/religions have a more detailed system that teaches about evaluation of relative harm even though Western religions may not.  The following is a paraphrase of a much longer statement on evaluation of harm and benefit.  One could say that this is also an example of self interest but it includes the interests of others on an equal basis. Of course it should be read in the context of a much larger philosophical system.

Quote...all actions are to be done with repeated reflection.
"Whenever you want to do an action, you should reflect on it: 'This action I want to do â€" would it lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both? Would it be an unskillful action, with painful consequences, painful results?' If, on reflection, you know that it would lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both; it would be an unskillful action with painful consequences, painful results, then any action of that sort is absolutely unfit for you to do. But if on reflection you know that it would not cause affliction... it would be a skillful action with pleasant consequences, pleasant results, then any action of that sort is fit for you to do.

"While you are doing an action, you should reflect on it: 'This action I am doing â€" is it leading to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both? Is it an unskillful action, with painful consequences, painful results?' If, on reflection, you know that it is leading to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both... you should give it up. But if on reflection you know that it is not... you may continue with it.

"Having done an action, you should reflect on it: 'This action I have done â€" did it lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both? Was it an unskillful action, with painful consequences, painful results?' If, on reflection, you know that it led to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both; it was an action with painful consequences, painful results, then you should confess it, reveal it, lay it open to the Teacher or to a knowledgeable companion in the holy life. Having discussed it... you should exercise restraint in the future. But if on reflection you know that it did not lead to affliction... it was a skillful action with pleasant consequences, pleasant results, then you should stay mentally refreshed & joyful, training day & night in skillful qualities.

Quote from: "philosoraptor"Here, I have to heartily disagree with you.  The philosophical community is a lot smaller than the world of lay people, so to claim that the standard set by one little community is the general standard for everyone else is somewhat ridiculous.  It's also silly to imply that the theist viewpoint is more dominant in the philosophical community than the atheist viewpoint-I'd say it's probably more 50/50 than anything.  For every philosopher arguing a god's existence, there is one arguing against it.  Perhaps you don't mean to imply that the theist viewpoint is the standard, but it certainly seems that way.

I have absolutely no idea how the size of a professional community translates into whether or not the standards it sets for its field is valid. This is, of course, assuming that you are right about the size of the philosophical community relative to the general population as compared the same ratio of, say, scientists, engineers, or, as in Davin's example, computer programmers. But even granting you that assertion, how does the size of the community determine anything? That's based on a type of ad populum fallacy.

QuoteMost religious systems have some sort of Golden Rule that would be a teaching on relative harm.

True, but the motivation to follow that is based in most religious systems on a reward/punishment model; thus, it is motivated not by compassion or care for others but by self-interest in the outcome for oneself.

Quote from: "AntigoneRisen"

QuoteMost religious systems have some sort of Golden Rule that would be a teaching on relative harm.

True, but the motivation to follow that is based in most religious systems on a reward/punishment model; thus, it is motivated not by compassion or care for others but by self-interest in the outcome for oneself.

How does one take oneself out of the equation?  One has to look to one's own fear of harm, pain or death in order to have develop empathy for another.   There is reward/punishment motivation inherent in all volitional action.  If one smokes, one increases the chance of disease (punishment).  If one maintains a good diet, one increases the chance of health (reward).  

Most religious systems are based on a third party, a god, who rewards or punishes.  Is this what you are thinking of?

Quote from: "Jac3510"

Quote from: "philosoraptor"Here, I have to heartily disagree with you.  The philosophical community is a lot smaller than the world of lay people, so to claim that the standard set by one little community is the general standard for everyone else is somewhat ridiculous.  It's also silly to imply that the theist viewpoint is more dominant in the philosophical community than the atheist viewpoint-I'd say it's probably more 50/50 than anything.  For every philosopher arguing a god's existence, there is one arguing against it.  Perhaps you don't mean to imply that the theist viewpoint is the standard, but it certainly seems that way.

I have absolutely no idea how the size of a professional community translates into whether or not the standards it sets for its field is valid. This is, of course, assuming that you are right about the size of the philosophical community relative to the general population as compared the same ratio of, say, scientists, engineers, or, as in Davin's example, computer programmers. But even granting you that assertion, how does the size of the community determine anything? That's based on a type of ad populum fallacy.

No more fallacious than your claim that the philosophical community determines the standard argument.  If you really want to argue logic and arguments, you could just as easily say that you've commit argumentum ad verecundiam.  All the same, as a member of the philosophical community, it has not been my experience that your argument is in fact the standard.  I'm merely trying to understand why you think it is.  If we examine different definitions of the word standard as an adjective, we both technically could be correct.

From the Free Dictionary:
2.  Widely recognized or employed as a model of authority or excellence
4.  Normal, familiar, or usual

All I'm saying is that my experience does not show your argument to be the standard.  This is speaking as a member of the philosophical community who has encountered theists both inside the philosophic academic circle and out in the world.  The attitude that atheists lack morality is an attitude that I experience commonly, regardless of whether or not the person is a philosopher or a lay person.  It is certainly even more common outside of academia, but is still the usual regardless.  I definitely did feel though that the program I was in as a graduate student was overwhelmingly theist, and not always hospitable towards atheists.  Of course this was only a small segment of the philosophical community.  That's really the point I'm trying to make-perhaps your experience is the opposite of mine.  Either way though, I don't think that you personally can claim what the standard is for the whole philosophical community.  I wouldn't make that claim, either.  I think it really will vary within different circles of the community.  Within philosophy, I don't think there is a standard.  If there were, it would almost defeat the purpose.  What would everyone have to argue about?

Quote from: "philosoraptor"No more fallacious than your claim that the philosophical community determines the standard argument.  If you really want to argue logic and arguments, you could just as easily say that you've commit argumentum ad verecundiam.  All the same, as a member of the philosophical community, it has not been my experience that your argument is in fact the standard.  I'm merely trying to understand why you think it is.  If we examine different definitions of the word standard as an adjective, we both technically could be correct.

From the Free Dictionary:
2.  Widely recognized or employed as a model of authority or excellence
4.  Normal, familiar, or usual

All I'm saying is that my experience does not show your argument to be the standard.  This is speaking as a member of the philosophical community who has encountered theists both inside the philosophic academic circle and out in the world.  The attitude that atheists lack morality is an attitude that I experience commonly, regardless of whether or not the person is a philosopher or a lay person.  It is certainly even more common outside of academia, but is still the usual regardless.  I definitely did feel though that the program I was in as a graduate student was overwhelmingly theist, and not always hospitable towards atheists.  Of course this was only a small segment of the philosophical community.  That's really the point I'm trying to make-perhaps your experience is the opposite of mine.  Either way though, I don't think that you personally can claim what the standard is for the whole philosophical community.  I wouldn't make that claim, either.  I think it really will vary within different circles of the community.  Within philosophy, I don't think there is a standard.  If there were, it would almost defeat the purpose.  What would everyone have to argue about?

1. I've already noted the distinction between "standard" as used to refer to a technical standard and its meaning of normal and how that relates to this thread. If you want to press that issue further, please see my previous comments, as it does none of us any good to repeat ourselves.

2. You are changing your argument. I have very little objection to your words here, but your previous argument to which I responded was that because the philosophical community is so small, its standards don't matter. Now, if you want to drop that argument, then fine, but arguing that your fallacy is "no more fallacious" than mine is, as you know, another fallacy--for those of you who insist on silly Latinisms, it's called a tu quoque. You are essentially saying, "My argument is stupid? Well yours is too!" Fine, but if so, deal with it on the merits, not with a reference to the failure of your own argument.

3. I realize that I said that the standard is determined by the philosophical community. Allow me to clarify my meaning. My first words to you were "And philosoraptor, the standard argument is not that atheists cannot be moral." Now, who is the one who makes this argument? Certainly not atheistic philosophers. I am speaking specifically of Christian philosophers.

Are you really going to tell me that you have met Christian philosophers who claim that atheists can't be moral? Are seriously going to tell me that is their philosophical position? If so, I'd like some examples. I've certainly never met all of the Christian philosophers out there. I haven't met most of them. But I've read many, many, many works by them--the ones we all read in our basic educations and then many of the ones most of us don't. I've never once encountered that position. On the contrary, as I have expressed repeatedly, I have seen that position repudiated in the literature.

4. The idea that there is no such thing as philosophical standards is rather silly. The law of non-contradiction is a standard. Are there people who disagree with it? Sure, but they aren't taken very seriously, as you well know. A position doesn't become standard by vote. It becomes standard by time and rigorous discussion. Perhaps my mistake was to use the definite article, as in "the standard argument" rather than the indefinite "a." If that's the case, then feel free to adjust my words. The point remains that I've encountered absolutely no Christian philosopher who holds the position that atheists cannot be moral. Still less is that a standard argument.

Quote from: "Jac3510"KerbertX,

Thanks for the kind remarks. Let me clarify why I said notself's comments explaining Buddhism were irrelevant. Whether I agree or disagree with the statements themselves doesn't matter, because that would only show an agreement or disagreement on our opinions. The issue, however, is the nature of morality itself. How to discover what is moral and what is immoral is an epistemological question. Whether or not morality is objective or subjective is an ontological question. A very important, and basic, philosophical fact to always keep before us is that epistemology does not determine ontology. I cannot tell you how many people have gotten off track, in my opinion, by missing that one little thing . . .

In other words, the methodology we use to discover what something is, is not the same thing as the nature of the thing we are discovering. We have to keep very separate the issues of moral epistemology--how we know what is right and wrong--and moral ontology--what is the nature of morality. My assertions are focused on the latter. Notself's assertions, which I see as extremely valuable and very much worth considering, relate to the former and need to be considered in that context. We couldn't do them justice by applying them to my point.

Again, I'm going to be making a thread on this in the very near future. I'm visiting family in south FL now, but I'll be driving home tomorrow. Hopefully, I can offer some deeper and more appropriate explanations Tuesday night or Wednesday morning.

Sorry for the confusion if I wasn't clear on that!

I understand, but I still think something is wrong with your argument that morality can be objective without a god.  Let me provide a counter example just to demonstrate:

In my view, actions that cause people suffering are wrong. For me, that is the simple construct of morality, and everything else is just nonsense that someone made up. We don't kill, rape, steal, lie, etc. because these actions are harmful to others. If you view the nature of existence from an atheistic Buddhist perspective, then what you see is that these things are bad Karma, because suffering (The opposite of Nirvana: release from suffering) brings you further from enlightenment.  If you think of life as an unending cycle that flows in the direction of Nirvana, and know that causing suffering is a movement away from Nirvana, then of course morality is objective. Refraining from causing others suffering is what we consider to be moral, and it is also moving in the direction of the natural progression of life.  Inescapable.  Inevitable. It's simply the nature of our existence.  Promotion of this behavior is as objective as telling people to obey the law of gravity.

I'm not saying I necessarily believe in Nirvana, frankly I think societies naturally evolving the compulsion to be hospitable to each other is reason enough to be moral.  Even if it is subjective, that doesn't diminish the fact that it's right.  And it doesn't make a theistic view of morality superior to an atheistic one.  Just because your morals are determined by public opinion (which has been determined by the social evolution of the human mind) doesn't make it any less meaningful to adhere to them. Because at the end of the day, if you've done something good, it doesn't matter why you did it.

It doesn't matter if you were trying to get into heaven, or make your skydaddy proud of you, or working to obtain enlightenment, or just doing what other people think is right, or even if you just wanted to win a free gift certificate.  You're still setting out to do good, and your reasoning behind it is obviously pointing you in the right direction.

That's a fair example, Kerbert, but let me respond to a couple of things.

Quote from: "KebertX"but I still think something is wrong with your argument that morality can be objective without a god.

Is this a typo? I think it is, but I want to confirm. You know that I am arguing that morality CANNOT be objective without God, correct? And technically, that isn't even what I'm arguing. Actually, I'm saying that there is no foundation for objective morality without God. Frankly, I think that morals are objective. I think that every atheist knows that some things are really right and some things are really wrong, objectively speaking. I just don't think that they have a foundation for their objective morality. They claim their morality is subjective, but they behave as if they are objective. That's the rub.

Let me give you an example. Suppose you and I are drinking from a fountain, and suppose you tell me that the water comes from a reservoir down the road. Suppose I say that the reservoir does not exist. Now, does the fact that I am denying the origin of the water mean that I can't drink the water or know that it is there or that I cannot benefit from it? Of course not! The same is true with reality. Atheist have all the benefits of objective morality because morality really is objective. They don't have to have the right belief to start experiencing reality itself -- to say that they did would be to argue that epistemology determines ontology, which it doesn't.

As to your counter example, let me use that to further clarify my position. It is very easy to have a foundation of objective morality without God. I could posit an invisible morality dispensing machine on the planet X120 in the Galaxy R538 in sector QueihIehhh&927y29 of the third universe on our left, and could then argue that all of us are psychologically connected to that machine, and that is the source of our morality. Thus, what it dispenses is right and wrong, making morality objective.

Fine. The point is that there must be something over and above the human experience in which to ground objective morality. I'm sure you would agree that my suggestion is rather silly. Philosophically, morality only comes from a sentient being. It doesn't take too much work to show that a being whose very nature is the root of morality would correspond to what we call God. In any case, all this is rather trivial, because what we should be able to agree on is that if there is nothing beyond the human experience, then there is nothing objective in which to ground morality. It is nothing more than a human construct and, as such, moral statements have no meaning whatsoever beyond personal opinion. In order to predicate real rightness and real wrongness to the essence of actions and attitudes themselves, we must have a sentient moral being over and above human beings in which to ground that meaning. I'm not, then, arguing that we can't agree on what is "right" and what is "wrong" for whatever our own personal reasons, be they religious or sociological. I'm arguing that the words "right" and "wrong" have no intrinsic, objective meaning if there is no God.

Quote from: "Jac3510"2. You are changing your argument. I have very little objection to your words here, but your previous argument to which I responded was that because the philosophical community is so small, its standards don't matter.

I never said the standards of the philosophic community don't matter.  I'm just not convinced that it's prudent to claim that a group as small as the philosophical community sets a standard that accurately reflects the standard for all academics as well as the rest of the world.  And again, I'm not convinced there is a standard for this particular argument within the community because it is so divided between atheists and theists.

Quote from: "Jac3510"3. Are you really going to tell me that you have met Christian philosophers who claim that atheists can't be moral? Are seriously going to tell me that is their philosophical position? If so, I'd like some examples. I've certainly never met all of the Christian philosophers out there. I haven't met most of them. But I've read many, many, many works by them--the ones we all read in our basic educations and then many of the ones most of us don't. I've never once encountered that position. On the contrary, as I have expressed repeatedly, I have seen that position repudiated in the literature.

I guess that depends on your definition of what is a philosopher.  I'm speaking not in terms of big names, but in terms of people I have met personally-profs and graduate students, specifically.  Not all of whom have been published or would be known to you.  Surely I don't need to point out to you why it's fallacious to assume that because you have not encountered people like this, they can't exist.  It sounds like that's what you're saying, but perhaps that's a miscommunication.  And yes, I have (sadly) met academics in my field who think that atheists cannot be moral.  Of course, I find that view point ridiculous, but then again, I also find circular Cartesian arguments ridiculous as well, and there are more than a few philosophers that supported them (and still do).

Quote from: "Jac3510"4. The idea that there is no such thing as philosophical standards is rather silly. The law of non-contradiction is a standard. Are there people who disagree with it? Sure, but they aren't taken very seriously, as you well know. A position doesn't become standard by vote. It becomes standard by time and rigorous discussion. Perhaps my mistake was to use the definite article, as in "the standard argument" rather than the indefinite "a." If that's the case, then feel free to adjust my words. The point remains that I've encountered absolutely no Christian philosopher who holds the position that atheists cannot be moral. Still less is that a standard argument.

Yes, I guess it is your language I disagreed with.  I don't think there is ONE standard argument within the philosophic community here, which was what your initial post made it sound you were claiming.  I can agree though that it is a standard argument, just not the singular argument.  However, I still don't feel though that the philosophical community is necessarily the one responsible for setting standards outside of academia.  I hope that makes it a little more clear.

I can agree with pretty much everything you said, although it deeply saddens me to think that there are Christian philosophy profs out there who think that atheists cannot be moral. I can understand grad students thinking that. They're just students, still learning and studying. But a prof? With a PhD? That would imply that they have actually read the material that expressly refutes such nonsense. I can't imagine ever meeting that.

Then again, I met a prof with a PhD in theology who claimed that he had read every work by a particular author regarding an issue I was defending with which he disagreed. When I asked him about a very simple factual point (specifically, why the word "repentance" is never used in John's gospel) he disagreed and told me that I was wrong, and that it was used extensively. Here, he is just just factually wrong. How could such a man have read so many works, including his Bible, and still make such an elementary mistake? Either he lied about having read the material or he dismissed the arguments he read without considering them. Both are truly sad.

So perhaps there are Christian philosophy profs who hold to that view, but it is frankly difficult for me to believe that 1) they have read the first word on ethics (there are, as you know many different fields of philosophy in which one may specialize) and 2) that they've considered the arguments by the standard bearers in Christian philosophy (Moreland, Craig, Plantinga, Rea, etc.). Maybe I'm wrong, but I will be completely honest and say it is extremely difficult for me to fathom.

Anyway, I understand your position taken in your last sentence. In some ways I might agree, but in others still not, which is probably the only place we might part company here. On the assumption that philosophical knowledge is true knowledge, then the philosophical community sets the standards of philosophical argument. Certainly, the community is deeply fragmented. But here we can simply divide them into subsets, in which the particular subset I'm speaking of is Christian philosophers. That's not to say that popular arguments are meaningless and don't need to be dealt with, which as I have admitted before my initial post could be taken to mean. It just means that those popular arguments are better quickly dismissed on the merits and backed up with Christian scholarship (when speaking to Christians) and then moving on to explain what the real argument actually is.

Thank you for helping refine my point. It's always good to be kept honest.

Unfortunately, nothing surprises me, even coming from someone with a PhD.  I had the the former chair of the English department for my basic composition classes as an undergrad, and he had difficulty spelling four letter words.  He also thought that the abbreviation for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals was PITA.  

I also once had a teacher tell me anarchy and socialism were the same thing.  When I pointed out that they certainly were not, she told me I was flat out wrong.  Um, okay?

Hard to fathom, yes.  Because I think we'd all like to imagine that someone who's a tool or an idiot won't end up with a PhD and expert status.  Unfortunately, that's not always the case.

Quote from: "Jac3510"Kylyssa, this is obviously a deeply emotional issue for you. I am sorry for your experiences and I can understand how they would color your take on things. For what it is worth, I do understand your position, and I promise you that this is no more purely intellectual with me than it is purely emotional with you. Let's just leave it here and trust that both of us want, at least on some level, the same thing as far as this issue goes.

If these things didn't happen or even stopped happening I wouldn't bother blogging or writing or giving a damn about atheism or religion.  If we could be allowed the same rights and protections as everyone else and people stopped doing jackass, horrible things due to their religion it would be a non-issue.  

The Atheist Centre of India has saved and made better hundreds of thousands, possibly millions of lives since it started back in the 1940s.  But you know what?  It would have been a lot better if religion hadn't endangered those people in the first place.  If people weren't burning widows to death for religious reasons, I doubt it would have become a tradition.

If people were not throwing kids out for not following their parents' faith in the way their parents want, no one would have to save the kids thrown out because they wouldn't be thrown out in the first place.    

Read the Bible as if it were just a book for once and carefully analyze how the main character behaves.

Just to jump in with this.

I am not convinced that morality is in any way objective.

What we call morality is basically nothing more than the applied results of human beings figuring out how to live together and thrive individually and as a community. The rest of so-called morality is just a lot of bigoted religious or politically driven crap. In my opinion.

Quote from: "Jac3510"That's a fair example, Kerbert, but let me respond to a couple of things.

Quote from: "KebertX"but I still think something is wrong with your argument that morality can be objective without a god.

Is this a typo? I think it is, but I want to confirm. You know that I am arguing that morality CANNOT be objective without God, correct? And technically, that isn't even what I'm arguing. Actually, I'm saying that there is no foundation for objective morality without God. Frankly, I think that morals are objective. I think that every atheist knows that some things are really right and some things are really wrong, objectively speaking. I just don't think that they have a foundation for their objective morality. They claim their morality is subjective, but they behave as if they are objective. That's the rub.

Let me give you an example. Suppose you and I are drinking from a fountain, and suppose you tell me that the water comes from a reservoir down the road. Suppose I say that the reservoir does not exist. Now, does the fact that I am denying the origin of the water mean that I can't drink the water or know that it is there or that I cannot benefit from it? Of course not! The same is true with reality. Atheist have all the benefits of objective morality because morality really is objective. They don't have to have the right belief to start experiencing reality itself -- to say that they did would be to argue that epistemology determines ontology, which it doesn't.

As to your counter example, let me use that to further clarify my position. It is very easy to have a foundation of objective morality without God. I could posit an invisible morality dispensing machine on the planet X120 in the Galaxy R538 in sector QueihIehhh&927y29 of the third universe on our left, and could then argue that all of us are psychologically connected to that machine, and that is the source of our morality. Thus, what it dispenses is right and wrong, making morality objective.

Fine. The point is that there must be something over and above the human experience in which to ground objective morality. I'm sure you would agree that my suggestion is rather silly. Philosophically, morality only comes from a sentient being. It doesn't take too much work to show that a being whose very nature is the root of morality would correspond to what we call God. In any case, all this is rather trivial, because what we should be able to agree on is that if there is nothing beyond the human experience, then there is nothing objective in which to ground morality. It is nothing more than a human construct and, as such, moral statements have no meaning whatsoever beyond personal opinion. In order to predicate real rightness and real wrongness to the essence of actions and attitudes themselves, we must have a sentient moral being over and above human beings in which to ground that meaning. I'm not, then, arguing that we can't agree on what is "right" and what is "wrong" for whatever our own personal reasons, be they religious or sociological. I'm arguing that the words "right" and "wrong" have no intrinsic, objective meaning if there is no God.

I am sorry, that WAS A TYPO. I entirely meant to say CANNOT.  That was a mess up.  Sorry.  Ignore it, please.

Even your final argument is not necessarily true. As social animals, it follows that it is likely to have evolved our imperative not to harm one another as a necessity of surviving in groups. No social creature could survive long in a group without this trait, so I think it stands to reason that an imperative to not harm one another is an inevitable eventuality in the Human Species. I don't have a lot of time to elaborate right now, but I'd argue that species-wide inevitability of morality constitutes  an objective standard of morality.

Quote from: "KebertX"I am sorry, that WAS A TYPO. I entirely meant to say CANNOT.  That was a mess up.  Sorry.  Ignore it, please.

Even your final argument is not necessarily true. As social animals, it follows that it is likely to have evolved our imperative not to harm one another as a necessity of surviving in groups. No social creature could survive long in a group without this trait, so I think it stands to reason that an imperative to not harm one another is an inevitable eventuality in the Human Species. I don't have a lot of time to elaborate right now, but I'd argue that species-wide inevitability of morality constitutes  an objective standard of morality.

Ok, that's fine. I thought it was, I just wanted to be sure! :)

Jac3510, what in the Sam Hill are you talking about?

Quote from: "i_am_i"Jac3510, what in the Sam Hill are you talking about?

The ontology of morality - what would it mean for it to be objective or subjective. Most atheists agree that their position requires morality to be completely subjective, but some still try to find an objective basis for it. I'm just pressing the point as to why its not possible.

Quote from: "Jac3510"

Quote from: "i_am_i"Jac3510, what in the Sam Hill are you talking about?

The ontology of morality - what would it mean for it to be objective or subjective. Most atheists agree that their position requires morality to be completely subjective, but some still try to find an objective basis for it. I'm just pressing the point as to why its not possible.

Please provide a list of objective moral statements.  Perhaps it will clear things up.

Quote from: "notself"Please provide a list of objective moral statements.  Perhaps it will clear things up.

Any moral statement is objective.

Murder is wrong.
Rape is wrong.
Helping little old ladies cross the street is a good thing.
Obama did the right thing when he ordered the SEALs to take out the pirates last year.
We ought to be honest.
We shouldn't be unkind.

All of these statements are objective. They aren't objective because anyone agrees or disagrees. Even if every person in the world agreed, that wouldn't make them objective. They aren't objective because they are true. I could just as well add, "Human sacrifice is a good thing." That is an objective moral statement as well. It is just wrong in that it misrepresents reality just as much as the statement "Abraham Lincoln was the first president of the United States" is wrong in that it misrepresents reality. That's the point I am making. The question is do moral statements themselves speak of reality itself, or do they merely speak of personal opinion. Does the statement "murder is wrong" refer to murder itself, or does the statement just refer to me and really just means, "I do not like murder." The latter is true on atheism. The former may only be true if God exists.

If I understand you, your objection to murder is objective if one believes in a god and the immorality of this same act is subjective if one doesn't believe in a god.

Quote from: "Jac3510"Any moral statement is objective.

Murder is wrong.
Rape is wrong.
Helping little old ladies cross the street is a good thing.
Obama did the right thing when he ordered the SEALs to take out the pirates last year.
We ought to be honest.
We shouldn't be unkind.

Ok, now I'm confused.

Are you saying these statements are always true?  Or always right?  Or they are objective?

Let's see:
"Murder is wrong."
... except when God tells you to do it.
... except in self defense.
... except when sanctioned by the state.

Are you going to be "honest" when being interrogated by the enemy?  Or when talking to a shady, dishonest person?  Or do you sometimes withhold the truth for the greater good?

And what about that "little old lady"?  What if she's got a bomb strapped to her and there's a busload of nuns and orphans on the other side of the street... Still want to help her cross?

I'm pretty sure that the pirates don't think Obama did the "right" thing.

Quote from: "notself"If I understand you, your objection to murder is objective if one believes in a god and the immorality of this same act is subjective if one doesn't believe in a god.

Correct.

Quote from: "joeactor"Ok, now I'm confused.

Are you saying these statements are always true?  Or always right?  Or they are objective?

Let's see:
"Murder is wrong."
... except when God tells you to do it.
... except in self defense.
... except when sanctioned by the state.

Are you going to be "honest" when being interrogated by the enemy?  Or when talking to a shady, dishonest person?  Or do you sometimes withhold the truth for the greater good?

And what about that "little old lady"?  What if she's got a bomb strapped to her and there's a busload of nuns and orphans on the other side of the street... Still want to help her cross?

I'm pretty sure that the pirates don't think Obama did the "right" thing.

I am not arguing that any of those statements are absolutely true as I'm not arguing for absolute morality. I'm arguing for the necessarily theistic basis of objectivity in morality. I reject deontological ethics for some of the reasons you mention here. Whether or not a particular course of action is right or wrong in any given case is a matter of discussion and points to the need for the virtues. My point is that the question of whether or not something is right or wrong in any given situation is objectively meaningless if God does not exist.

Quote from: "Jac3510"

Quote from: "notself"If I understand you, your objection to murder is objective if one believes in a god and the immorality of this same act is subjective if one doesn't believe in a god.

Correct.

Might be unintentionally nit-picking here but having at one time spent 8 years writing, editing and proof reading technical catalogue copy some things just stick out like a sore thumb.

You agreed with notself's statement in which they referred to 'a' as in 'any of a number of' gods, not a 'specific' God. Now, going from what I understand your position to be there can only be one god. So are you saying the act of believing in 'a' or 'any' god would make one's view of murder objective or something else that I have missed?

Quote from: "Tank"

Quote from: "Jac3510"

Quote from: "notself"If I understand you, your objection to murder is objective if one believes in a god and the immorality of this same act is subjective if one doesn't believe in a god.

Correct.

Might be unintentionally nit-picking here but having at one time spent 8 years writing, editing and proof reading technical catalogue copy some things just stick out like a sore thumb.

You agreed with notself's statement in which they referred to 'a' as in 'any of a number of' gods, not a 'specific' God. Now, going from what I understand your position to be there can only be one god. So are you saying the act of believing in 'a' or 'any' god would make one's view of murder objective or something else that I have missed?

No, you are correct. Belief in 'a' god doesn't do anything. It has to be God. I didn't want to come across like a grammar Nazi given the rest of the sentence (not that you are; your point is perfectly valid). I was just trying to take the general meaning. However, precision is of the utmost importance in these kinds of discussions.

Since precision is important, let me refine your statement just a bit. It is not belief in God that makes one's view of murder objective. I assume you agree that murder is wrong. I am convinced that your belief here is objectively correct. Murder really is wrong, and you recognize, in my view anyway, that objective fact, even if you deny God's existence. My point is strictly and totally ontological, which may make it appear trivial, but it is of the utmost importance. I am saying that if god doesn't exist, then whatever your or I think about morality is subjective, regardless of how we may try to argue otherwise. It's all just a matter of opinion, no matter how strongly we hold to those opinions or how much we all agree with them. The statement "murder is wrong" is no more or less true than "vanilla ice cream is good." They have precisely the same truth value. If God does exist--whether we believe in Him or not is not the issue--then moral statements do have truth value that purely subjective statements such as "vanilla ice cream is good" do not.

This is important, because I don't want anyone to interpret me as saying that atheists cannot know right from wrong, cannot be moral, or have a subjective view of morality. You don't. I believe your view is OBJECTIVE, just as mine is. But that is because I believe that morality itself is objective. The only reason we can have a real discussion about what really is right and wrong is that morality really is objective, because if it wasn't, then saying something is right and wrong is objectively meaningless. It seems to me that atheists argue that morality is subjective because it is forced on them. The argument would go like this:

1. If there is no God, morality must be subjective
2. There is no God
3. Therefore, morality is subjective

The argument is valid. (1) is true. The problem is with (2). At this point, we start moving away from the argument I've been making and start moving on to an actual moral argument for God's existence, but indulge me just for a moment here, because it illustrates well the point I am trying to make in this thread. Let's just pretend for the sake of argument that God does, in fact, exist. Then (2) above is false and the conclusion is wrong. Morality does turn out to be objective. Does the fact that a person holds to a view of morality that does not properly represent reality mean that said person cannot interact with reality as reality actually is? Of course not! Your mental representation of reality is just that -- a mental representation. It doesn't determine the nature of reality itself.

So my point is that morality can only be objective if God exists, and that if God does not exist, it must be subjective. I am saying absolutely nothing more than that. I am not speaking about the belief in God with reference to the objectivity or subjectivity of morality, because my personal belief in God has no bearing on the actual ontology of reality itself.

Does that make my point a bit clearer? I understand why this has to be stated so many different ways as the point has been so very deeply abused in the past. I am just as concerned with being clear on what I am not saying as being clear on what I am.

I suspected that you were making a general point that notself had got the gist of your argument correct. However your response allowed me to create a question that would allow you to clarify your position, and you did, very effectively, thank you. I'm pretty sure I understand what you are getting at now, at least I hope so.

So, for arguments sake, God (the singular Christian God defined in detail by yourself earlier) exists and instils a moral sense in His creations, us. A person's belief in that singular God, or not, makes no difference to that person's ability to make an objective moral judgement with that moral sense that is instilled in all of us by God.

It is only if God does not exist that morality becomes subjective as there is no 'God given' framework upon which to base an objective moral judgement.

Is that close to what you are getting at?

Quote from: "Tank"I suspected that you were making a general point that notself had got the gist of your argument correct. However your response allowed me to create a question that would allow you to clarify your position, and you did, very effectively, thank you. I'm pretty sure I understand what you are getting at now, at least I hope so.

So, for arguments sake, God (the singular Christian God defined in detail by yourself earlier) exists and instils a moral sense in His creations, us. A person's belief in that singular God, or not, makes no difference to that person's ability to make an objective moral judgement with that moral sense that is instilled in all of us by God.

It is only if God does not exist that morality becomes subjective as there is no 'God given' framework upon which to base an objective moral judgement.

Is that close to what you are getting at?

Close enough for me, yes sir. I might quibble with the term "moral sense," but that gets into details of how we know morality, not in what sense it is or is not objective. I only say that because you could argue that evolution has given us a "moral sense," but just so long as we are not basing objective moral judgment on the sense, but are merely using the sense (whatever its origin) to help us discover what is right and wrong in any particular case, what you've said perfectly well represents my position.

You believe that morality comes from a divine being.  Most atheists believe morality comes from empathy and altruism which appears even in human infants and other primates and therefore may be part of the natural wiring of the brain.  This natural predisposition is encouraged and shaped by culture.  

QuoteBr J Psychol. 2009 Aug;100(Pt 3):473-9; discussion 487-90.

Abstract
Human infants as young as 14 to 18 months of age help others attain their goals, for example, by helping them to fetch out-of-reach objects or opening cabinets for them. They do this irrespective of any reward from adults (indeed external rewards undermine the tendency), and very likely with no concern for such things as reciprocation and reputation, which serve to maintain altruism in older children and adults. Humans' nearest primate relatives, chimpanzees, also help others instrumentally without concrete rewards. These results suggest that human infants are naturally altruistic... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19063815 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19063815)

No, notself, I don't believe that "morality comes from a divine being." I believe its objective moral foundations are rooted in a divine being, and that, necessarily so. It doesn't matter where those morals come from. It doesn't matter if we get them from evolution, from culture, if God ingrained them us and they are known intuitively -- the origin of morals has absolutely no bearing on my argument.

Atheists typically view morality as a glorified herd instinct--altruism, as you point out. What I'm having trouble getting you to see is that just because an altruistic species is more likely to survive, that doesn't necessarily make an altruistic action morally right or morally wrong in and of itself. The only ways I know of to say that things are morally right or wrong in and of themselves is to root them in the command of God (which I don't) or to root them in the intended nature of human relationships (which I do and have argued in some detail is ultimately rooted in the nature of God; put differently, the intended human relationship is an expression of God's nature just as much as the laws of physics are). The distinction is subtle, but important. In any case, concerning the evolutionary model, I could just as well say that since my moral beliefs are nothing more than a holdover from human evolution that I recognize there is nothing morally binding about them and therefore choose to act in accordance with my own values, whatever they may be. That is, on the evolutionary model, I can choose my own value system on which to base morality. There is no objective reason that it has to be what is good for the human species, which is to say that morality is, ontologically speaking, subjective. Thus, on atheism, the evolutionary model of morality may explain why we act like we do (i.e., being "good" to one another), but it offers no objective basis on which to say those actions really are intrinsically good or evil.

I really want you to see what I'm saying. I don't want to keep repeating myself. I'm at a loss as to how to try to make my position any clearer. Any ideas?

I think your position is quite clear. However you are unique in my experience of theists on forums in your ability to express your views effectively and your willingness to do so. Thus it's a pleasant, in fact brilliant, experience to have a discussion of this nature with somebody where I might get to understand what they actually believe. Unlike another member here you're not only showing me the 'car' but you've opened the bonnet and let me test drive it. I may not buy it in due course but at least I'll understand, and hopefully be able to articulate, why I haven't bought it.

You're getting examined in detail simply because you haven't run away yet, and I sincerely hope you don't  

Quote from: "Jac3510"No, notself, I don't believe that "morality comes from a divine being." I believe its objective moral foundations are rooted in a divine being, and that, necessarily so. It doesn't matter where those morals come from. It doesn't matter if we get them from evolution, from culture, if God ingrained them us and they are known intuitively -- the origin of morals has absolutely no bearing on my argument.
I find it difficult to understand how you can state that moral foundations are rooted in a divine being while at the same time saying that morals don't come from a divine being.  You are too subtle for me.

Atheists typically view morality as a glorified herd instinct--altruism, as you point out.  Altruism is not herd instinct.  There is no evidence of altruistic behaviour in herd animals. Altruism is a characteristic of higher primates.

What I'm having trouble getting you to see is that just because an altruistic species is more likely to survive, that doesn't necessarily make an altruistic action morally right or morally wrong in and of itself.  Without altruism all the moral codes in the world will fail to be effective.  Altruism is the root of morals.  All that I see you doing is adding a layer "God" to something that does not need it.  You seem to be taking a round about way to justify the need for a god by saying that we need objective morals when in my opinion all we need is altruism that is further nurtured and developed by culture.  The variations in cultural norms supports that morals are subjective although they are rooted in altruism.

I'll continue in another post.

Quote from: "Jac3510"The distinction is subtle, but important. The distinction is important if one needs to believe in "God".  It is this belief in the divine being that makes one want morals to be objective rather than subjective. The Christian bible is an example of subjective morals.  At one time parents could stone their daughters for not conforming to cultural mores.  Now some Christians merely beat their daughters and throw them out of the house.  Most Christians just live with the disappointment. This is certainly a change in moral behavior.  It changed because society changes.  In those societies that have not changed such behavior is still the moral norm.  Saudi Arabia comes to mind.

In any case, concerning the evolutionary model, I could just as well say that since my moral beliefs are nothing more than a holdover from human evolution that I recognize there is nothing morally binding about them and therefore choose to act in accordance with my own values, whatever they may be. Altruism is not a holdover but rather a core part of the normal human response.  It is no more a holdover than opposable thumbs.

That is, on the evolutionary model, I can choose my own value system on which to base morality. If your value system did not substantially conform to that of society, you would be arrested.

There is no objective reason that it has to be what is good for the human species, which is to say that morality is, ontologically speaking, subjective. Thus, on atheism, the evolutionary model of morality may explain why we act like we do (i.e., being "good" to one another), but it offers no objective basis on which to say those actions really are intrinsically good or evil.I agree, there is no objective basis for morality.  You need to have an objective basis for morality, because without one there is no need for the divine. You believe in the divine so you argue the necessity for objective morals.

I really want you to see what I'm saying. I don't want to keep repeating myself. I'm at a loss as to how to try to make my position any clearer. Any ideas? Your position is clear.  Now that I understand it,I don't agree with it.  I do enjoy your thoughts and the way you express them..

Quote from: "Jac3510"But then a much more basic question comes up: since we know that our moral system is nothing more than a glorified herd instinct, why should we continue to uphold it? What is the objective reason for doing so?

The objective reason for upholding morality is obvious: it makes for a society in which the possibility of personal happiness is avaiable to the largest possible number of members.

QuoteThere isn't one as it turns out. You may want to continue to do what is good for the human species, but that's just your own personal value, and personal values can't be the ground for objective reality.

Category shift in the emphasized passage.  No one is arguing that reality itself can be grounded in objective morals.

I don't need an objective morality to treat people decently, and I pity anyone who does.

I'd like to say that though I neglected to welcome you in your Introduction thread, I'm glad that you've joined HAF, Jac3510.  I've enjoyed reading your posts very much, and appreciate the obvious effort that you've put into them. I'm a mere dabbler in philosophy, and sometimes get the terms confused, or have an insufficient grasp of their definitions, so please bear with me, and don't hesitate to correct improper usage when you see it.

I don't think that there is such a thing as an unequivocally objective morality.  I sincerely doubt that you, or Dr. Craig, or any other of the admirable Christian philosophers and theologians can prove conclusively that there is.  I do think that there is what I might call a provisionally objective morality.  You've  probably already imagined where I'm going with this.  

I agree with the idea, already mentioned by others, that we are a social species, and have evolved what you refer to as a "glorified herd instinct."  This is not an objective morality, but the moral tendencies (or instinct) we've inherited serve as a basis for morality that's more or less universal to the human species. Morality varies quite a bit from culture to culture, but there are a few moral precepts that in various guises are to be found in all of them. So while I don't think that objective morality exists in the sense of a Platonic ideal, I do think that there are common tendencies which are pretty much hard-wired into the human species.  We don't get to choose whether those tendencies are there, though people and societies can choose whether to ignore them or not.  This "proto-morality" does not exist independent of the human mind, but I don't think that the healthy human mind exists without it, either. It's "objective" in the sense that humanity doesn't get to choose whether it exists or not.  But its existence in dependent upon the existence of humanity, so it's not unequivocally objective.

 I don't think anything I've written here contradicts what you've written, because I agree that an unequivocally objective morality can only emanate from the supernatural realm, whether one wants to call its source "God" or "reservoir," or "balance in the universe."  But I felt that I should make an attempt to respond to at least a bit of your contributions so far, rather than just saying, "Cool stuff here, Jac3510, thanks for sharing it with us!"  I wouldn't be offended if you did no more than acknowledge that last sentence, because I honestly don't think that I've moved the conversation forward at all. I wrote this offline, and looking at some recent responses, maybe I should just go back to thanking you, but I'll go ahead and burden the bandwidth anyway.(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/images/smilies/smile.gif)

[EDIT] Removed faulty analogy.

Quote from: "Jac3510"Ok, that's fine. I thought it was, I just wanted to be sure! :)

Hope I didn't disappoint!

Hey Kerbert,

Rather than line-by-line your reply and create a motherload of a tl;dr, let me boil everything down into two basic points. Please, if in doing so, I miss anything at all you feel needs commenting on (even if it turns out to be your whole reply!) just let me know and I will immediately comment on that specifically. Fair enough?

1. It seems to me that your central value is social happiness, which stands in distinction to ethical egoism (in which happiness of the individual is the basic value pursued). Now, first, let me comment positively that this view is at least "objective" in a weak sense of the word, although not in the sense I am pressing. By that, I mean we can have a rational argument about what will bring about the most happiness for any given course of action and then label that action as the one that "ought" to be done. Further, I don't have a particularly pragmatic problem with the approach as it probably provides a fairly good test to help us discover the good (although I'm here presuming morality is objective as I mean it).

With that said, I have two objections.

First, there seems to be no objective reason to adopt it. You state that egoism is a pre-conventional morality, but that doesn't make it wrong. People beliefs, whether past, present, or future have no bearing on a statement's truth-value. You are assuming here that happiness (rather than survival as I originally commented on) is the proper value, and more specifically, the happiness of others. Now, I want to say here, "That may be true, but . . ." and yet I can't. I can't because the statement "that may be true" implies that the statement "The happiness of others ought to be sought" is an objective statement with a truth value in and of itself. But who says that it is? On what basis? There is no objective reason for accepting even your position. It is still just as subjective as anything else, which means morality is still reduced to nothing more than personal opinion.

Second, I can't agree with your conflation of inevitability and objectivity. To say,"People ought to behave such and such a way because they were bound to learn to act that way" doesn't address the fundamental issue, which is why should I behave as people are bound to behave? What objective reason can be provided to explain why I ought to adopt your value system? You can't appeal to your personal value to answer that, because it just begs the question.

2. You ask how it is that morality is objective with God. The question is fair. I have said repeatedly, and you have acknowledged, that I am not a deontologist. We don't root morality in God's command (although if we did, the worst we could say is that morality is objective for us, being His creations, even if it is subjective for Him. He is, after all, God!). It is rooted in the intention of God concerning the created order.

Let me give you an example.

Did you ever see The Little Mermaid? Do you remember the scene where Ariel uses the fork as a hair brush? She saw this strange thing and just assumed that it was to be used on her hair. Of course, she was wrong. That's not what a fork is for at all. It wasn't designed to brush hair. The fact that it can do serve that purpose is neither here nor their. Its purpose is for eating. Ariel was wrong, sincerely and ignorantly so, about its purpose. But she could only be wrong if it had an actual purpose, and it could only have a purpose if it was designed by an intelligent designer.

God created the universe to work according to certain laws. We study them every day in the laboratory. Morality is precisely the same way, which is why it used to be called "the moral law." Mankind is intended to be kind to one another. That intention provides the basis for an objective ought. Let me, however, make a STRONG word of caution. I am NOT saying that the objective basis provides an epistemic test for what we ought to do in any given test. Part of the problem with modern ethics is that they confuse the question "How do I know right from wrong" with the question "What is right and wrong." I am simply offering why it is that morals can be objective if God exists. His intentions, in any case, are rooted in His nature, not His commands (which is something philosophers are very well aware of when discussion practical reason).

So here's the practical take away:

Someone asks you, "Why should I be kind," you answer, "Because it increases happiness." They respond, "Why should I care about increasing happiness," you can only respond, in whatever words you choose, "Because you should!"

Someone asks me, "Why should I be kind," I answer, "Because God created social relationships to be couched in kindness." They respond, "Why would God create the world in such a way," and I respond, "Because it is consistent with His nature."

Notice that in your answer, we ought to do something relative to a value system, which makes it subjective, because everyone has the right to their own value system. In my answer, we ought to to something relative to the way reality is structured, which makes it objective, because people do not have the right to their own realities.

Thanks for reply, and no, you certainly did not disappoint. If you think it is refreshing to talk to a theist who rejects deontology, I find it just as refreshing to talk to a non-theist who is willing to engage in serious dialogue on this rather than just accuse me of Bible thumping. :p

Jac3510, I think you've done a fine job of proving that objective morality can't be grounded in something evolutionary or social.

However,  you brought up the idea of the morality machine on a far off planet. I don't believe you addressed KebertX's point regarding this (I'm wrong alot though).  If this machine exists, then we would have objective morality without God.  You seem to have also proven that objective morality doesn't require God.

Quote from: "humblesmurph"You seem to have also proven that objective morality doesn't require God.

I am of the same opinion. One can fantasize several ways in which an objective morality could be shoved down our collective throats, most of which would not require godly traits - only advanced technology. Of course, such scenarios would be highly speculative, but no more speculative than a proposition of god, as understood in the abrahamic religions.

Quote from: "humblesmurph"Jac3510, I think you've done a fine job of proving that objective morality can't be grounded in something evolutionary or social.

However,  you brought up the idea of the morality machine on a far off planet. I don't believe you addressed KebertX's point regarding this (I'm wrong alot though).  If this machine exists, then we would have objective morality without God.  You seem to have also proven that objective morality doesn't require God.

In the scenario I suggested, the machine would have to be somehow related to the purpose of man. Just spitting out rules wouldn't mean anything unless those rules were somehow connected to man's purpose.

Now, I suppose there IS a way that you can have objective morality without God in this regard . . . if you argue that humanity was created by an alien race, then you can argue that we were designed for a specific purpose (theoretically) and therefore we ought to act in a certain way if we are to fulfill our intended purpose. The only problem with that is you come dangerously close to falling into Euthyphro's Dilemma again. I don't think most people appreciate that the original dilemma deeply rests on the polytheism of the Greek world.

Anyway, with that said, I don't think there is anybody, especially not here, who thinks that we were designed for a purpose by an alien race that has imposed a moral structure on our society. If someone does want to argue that, I suppose I can concede that is a rational possibility. Shy of that, we are still left with a completely subjective moral system if God doesn't exist.

Quote from: "Jac3510"

Quote from: "humblesmurph"Jac3510, I think you've done a fine job of proving that objective morality can't be grounded in something evolutionary or social.

However,  you brought up the idea of the morality machine on a far off planet. I don't believe you addressed KebertX's point regarding this (I'm wrong alot though).  If this machine exists, then we would have objective morality without God.  You seem to have also proven that objective morality doesn't require God.

In the scenario I suggested, the machine would have to be somehow related to the purpose of man. Just spitting out rules wouldn't mean anything unless those rules were somehow connected to man's purpose.

Now, I suppose there IS a way that you can have objective morality without God in this regard . . . if you argue that humanity was created by an alien race, then you can argue that we were designed for a specific purpose (theoretically) and therefore we ought to act in a certain way if we are to fulfill our intended purpose. The only problem with that is you come dangerously close to falling into Euthyphro's Dilemma again. I don't think most people appreciate that the original dilemma deeply rests on the polytheism of the Greek world.

It seems like you're saying with these two paragraphs that in order for objective morality to exist, it would have to be for the purpose of us humans.

Quote from: "Jac3510"Anyway, with that said, I don't think there is anybody, especially not here, who thinks that we were designed for a purpose by an alien race that has imposed a moral structure on our society. If someone does want to argue that, I suppose I can concede that is a rational possibility. Shy of that, we are still left with a completely subjective moral system if God doesn't exist.

Unless we can objectively determine what objective morality is, we're always going to be stuck with subjective morality.

Quote from: "Jac3510"

Quote from: "humblesmurph"Jac3510, I think you've done a fine job of proving that objective morality can't be grounded in something evolutionary or social.

However,  you brought up the idea of the morality machine on a far off planet. I don't believe you addressed KebertX's point regarding this (I'm wrong alot though).  If this machine exists, then we would have objective morality without God.  You seem to have also proven that objective morality doesn't require God.

In the scenario I suggested, the machine would have to be somehow related to the purpose of man. Just spitting out rules wouldn't mean anything unless those rules were somehow connected to man's purpose.

Now, I suppose there IS a way that you can have objective morality without God in this regard . . . if you argue that humanity was created by an alien race, then you can argue that we were designed for a specific purpose (theoretically) and therefore we ought to act in a certain way if we are to fulfill our intended purpose. The only problem with that is you come dangerously close to falling into Euthyphro's Dilemma again. I don't think most people appreciate that the original dilemma deeply rests on the polytheism of the Greek world.

Anyway, with that said, I don't think there is anybody, especially not here, who thinks that we were designed for a purpose by an alien race that has imposed a moral structure on our society.If someone does want to argue that, I suppose I can concede that is a rational possibility. Shy of that, we are still left with a completely subjective moral system if God doesn't exist.

This is where we diverge Chris.  First, I don't necessarily agree with your characterization of this morality machine.  If morality could be manufactured, like say light, it doesn't really matter if it is connected to man's purpose.  The sun doesn't exist for the purpose of man, but we are given light by it.  In the same sense, morality could be just generated by some far off entity that is not concerned about, or even knowledgeable of, human existence.

I'm not arguing that such an entity exists.  I'm saying that it is just shy of infinitely more likely than the Christian God.  It's an intermediate source of objective morality that you don't seem to give the same credence as God or human intellect.  Basically, you are saying that either we did it, or god did it.  That seems like an excluded middle fallacy to me.  The mere fact that people generally would find a morality making machine ridiculous doesn't count as an argument against it's existence.

Quote from: "Davin"It seems like you're saying with these two paragraphs that in order for objective morality to exist, it would have to be for the purpose of us humans.

I am. For morality to be objective in any species it would have to be connected to that species purpose. That's why morality must be subjective in the absence of a Creator (or, as I conceded, on some level a creator). Broadly speaking, without God, morality cannot be objective.

QuoteUnless we can objectively determine what objective morality is, we're always going to be stuck with subjective morality.

You are confusing epistemology with ontology again. Knowing what something is (epistemology) has no bearing on whether or not that something is (ontology). We've not gotten far enough to talk about how we know what objective morality is, although we've laid the groundwork. We've only talked about what it would mean if it were or were not objective.

Quote from: "humblesmurph"This is where we diverge Chris.  First, I don't necessarily agree with your characterization of this morality machine.  If morality could be manufactured, like say light, it doesn't really matter if it is connected to man's purpose.  The sun doesn't exist for the purpose of man, but we are given light by it.  In the same sense, morality could be just generated by some far off entity that is not concerned about, or even knowledgeable of, human existence.

Strictly speaking, morality can't be "manufactured" because morality, by its very definition, discusses how man ought to behave. There is no behavior atom. Morality governs man's actions, so it can't be "manufactured" like light can. Thus, the light of the sun is an objective reality. It is there whether we agree or disagree with it. The statement, "The sun puts out light" is either true or false, regardless of what you or I believe. That's because its reality isn't tied to man's purpose. How man ought to behave, however, is tied to his purpose (assuming he has one). If man has no purpose, then there is absolutely no objective truth-value to the statement, "This is the right thing to do." Nothing is the "right" or "wrong" thing to do. All those statements mean, if man has no purpose, is, "I want you to do this because it is in line with my value system."

QuoteI'm not arguing that such an entity exists.  I'm saying that it is just shy of infinitely more likely than the Christian God.  It's an intermediate source of objective morality that you don't seem to give the same credence as God or human intellect.  Basically, you are saying that either we did it, or god did it.  That seems like an excluded middle fallacy to me.  The mere fact that people generally would find a morality making machine ridiculous doesn't count as an argument against it's existence.

Hopefully the above explained what I mean. The whole reason I brought up the machine analogy in the first place was to compare it to the divine command model. Theoretically, a machine can issue commands just as much as a God can. I can concede here precisely the same thing I conceded to Kerbert about his value of happiness of all. Morality could be objective in a weak sense of the word if a machine was just telling me what I ought to do. I could look at the machine's command I choose to base my actions on that, which would, by definition, be weakly objective. It would not, however, be objective in the strong sense which I have been arguing for throughout this thread, that is, morality being objective in and of itself. In other words, there would be no intrinsic reason for adopting that machine's commands as normative anymore than there is an objective reason for adopting human happiness as the normative value. The only way around that would be to make this machine an intrinsic part of the purpose of man, as if an advanced alien race created us and somehow tied our behavior in with that (did you ever read The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy?). There is, however, absolutely no reason to suggest that is the case. Thus:

If mankind has a purpose, morality can be objective.
If mankind does not have a purpose, morality cannot be objective.

How does man get purpose? From a Creator who designed Him, because purpose is tied to the notion of intention, which is tied to the notion of design.

Quote from: "humblesmurph"This is where we diverge Chris.  First, I don't necessarily agree with your characterization of this morality machine.  If morality could be manufactured, like say light, it doesn't really matter if it is connected to man's purpose.  The sun doesn't exist for the purpose of man, but we are given light by it.  In the same sense, morality could be just generated by some far off entity that is not concerned about, or even knowledgeable of, human existence.

Quote from: "Jac3510"Strictly speaking, morality can't be "manufactured" because morality, by its very definition, discusses how man ought to behave. There is no behavior atom. Morality governs man's actions, so it can't be "manufactured" like light can. Thus, the light of the sun is an objective reality. It is there whether we agree or disagree with it. The statement, "The sun puts out light" is either true or false, regardless of what you or I believe. That's because its reality isn't tied to man's purpose. How man ought to behave, however, is tied to his purpose (assuming he has one). If man has no purpose, then there is absolutely no objective truth-value to the statement, "This is the right thing to do." Nothing is the "right" or "wrong" thing to do. All those statements mean, if man has no purpose, is, "I want you to do this because it is in line with my value system."

QuoteI'm not arguing that such an entity exists.  I'm saying that it is just shy of infinitely more likely than the Christian God.  It's an intermediate source of objective morality that you don't seem to give the same credence as God or human intellect.  Basically, you are saying that either we did it, or god did it.  That seems like an excluded middle fallacy to me.  The mere fact that people generally would find a morality making machine ridiculous doesn't count as an argument against it's existence.

Quote from: "Jac3510"Hopefully the above explained what I mean. The whole reason I brought up the machine analogy in the first place was to compare it to the divine command model. Theoretically, a machine can issue commands just as much as a God can. I can concede here precisely the same thing I conceded to Kerbert about his value of happiness of all. Morality could be objective in a weak sense of the word if a machine was just telling me what I ought to do. I could look at the machine's command I choose to base my actions on that, which would, by definition, be weakly objective. It would not, however, be objective in the strong sense which I have been arguing for throughout this thread, that is, morality being objective in and of itself. In other words, there would be no intrinsic reason for adopting that machine's commands as normative anymore than there is an objective reason for adopting human happiness as the normative value. The only way around that would be to make this machine an intrinsic part of the purpose of man, as if an advanced alien race created us and somehow tied our behavior in with that (did you ever read The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy?). There is, however, absolutely no reason to suggest that is the case. Thus:

If mankind has a purpose, morality can be objective.
If mankind does not have a purpose, morality cannot be objective.

How does man get purpose? From a Creator who designed Him, because purpose is tied to the notion of intention, which is tied to the notion of design.

Thank you for the clarification.  I think we are getting closer to the point of agreeing to disagree.  I disagree with your definition of morality.  Why only humans? Why not animals? Why not yet unknown intelligent beings in far reaches of the universe?   Saying that there is no behavior atom is as baseless a claim as saying there is no god.  Just because you haven't seen this atom, doesn't mean it doesn't exist, just as the lack of proof for God isn't sufficient proof of it's non existence.

You choose to associate objective morality with humankind's purpose.  That seems arbitrary, I don't accept or reject this .  Setting that aside, couldn't a proponent of KebertX's line of thinking simply say that humankind's purpose is to survive?   Doesn't this leave you two right back where you started?

You reject the morality machine as you have outlined it.  Fair enough.  It still presents an inescapable problem in my view. I purposely referred to this machine as an "entity".  This entity could be supernatural, but not omnipotent. There could be a god of the humans, a being that created humans and endowed them with morality, reason, love, and all the rest.  This god needn't have any hand in the creating of the rest of the physical universe.  You are presuming a omnipotent god is responsible for a thing  that an infinitely less powerful being could be capable of.  

To be clear, I don't believe in anything supernatural, and I don't think that morality is objective.

Quote from: "humblesmurph"Thank you for the clarification.  I think we are getting closer to the point of agreeing to disagree.  I disagree with your definition of morality.  Why only humans? Why not animals? Why not yet unknown intelligent beings in far reaches of the universe?   Saying that there is no behavior atom is as baseless a claim as saying there is no god.  Just because you haven't seen this atom, doesn't mean it doesn't exist, just as the lack of proof for God isn't sufficient proof of it's non existence.

Technically, I'm not arguing that animals don't have a morality. Unfortunately, I'm not a lion, tiger, or bear, so I can't tell you whether or not they have a moral system. The best I can do is examine them and say, "there doesn't appear to be one." I can go a little further then that, which I will below, but the point remains. Or let's say a super-advanced alien race examined humanity. Unless they could understand our language, would they believe that we had a moral system? There is no reason to think that they would. They would make precisely the same statements about us that we make about animals or rocks. That is, all their statements about our behavior would be descriptive rather than normative. They would say, "When man A kills man B and is caught, and man A is quarantined from the rest of humanity by men C, D, and E." That doesn't yield, "You ought not murder." Description is not prescription. Morality deals with the latter.

QuoteYou choose to associate objective morality with humankind's purpose.  That seems arbitrary, I don't accept or reject this .  Setting that aside, couldn't a proponent of KebertX's line of thinking simply say that humankind's purpose is to survive?   Doesn't this leave you two right back where you started?

My choice to ground morality in the structure of human relationships is a matter of logical necessity. Let me prove it:

1. Something can only be said to be "supposed to be" it is rooted in a supposer's design for the thing to be that way;
2. Human action is commonly said to "supposed to be" a certain way;
3. Therefore, human action is rooted in the design of a supposer.

This is why this is all so important, Mike. When we say "morality is objective" we are talking about an "ought" which logically requires a design, and design, as you know, requires a designer. My rooting objectivity in the intended structure of human society is not arbitary; it is an analytical requirement, just like declaring all unmarried men bachelors is not arbitrary but an analytical requirement.

The best you can do is just deny that morality is objective. That's fine. We haven't had the discussion yet whether or not morality is objective. Just getting people to see what that means is a feat in and of itself. But, for this discussion, the all important point is that if there is no Creator who designed human society, objective morality is absolutely impossible.

QuoteYou reject the morality machine as you have outlined it.  Fair enough.  It still presents an inescapable problem in my view. I purposely referred to this machine as an "entity".  This entity could be supernatural, but not omnipotent. There could be a god of the humans, a being that created humans and endowed them with morality, reason, love, and all the rest.  This god needn't have any hand in the creating of the rest of the physical universe.  You are presuming a omnipotent god is responsible for a thing  that an infinitely less powerful being could be capable of.  

To be clear, I don't believe in anything supernatural, and I don't think that morality is objective.

No, no, no, no. In this thread, I have not presumed that objective morality is rooted in the Creator of the Universe. Logically, it could be that human morality is rooted, objectively, in a higher species. But to say that is to assert that this species designed us for a particular purpose. Again, absolutely the only thing I am trying to show in this thread is that for morality to be objective, it must be rooted in a higher power. It cannot be objective and be rooted in human values, be that individual or societal, or human evolution.

This, then, is what allows me to logically infer that there is no moral system in rocks or tigers. There appears to be no intended purpose in their societal structure precisely because there appears to be no higher designer. We didn't design them, and there is no evidence that we, or they, we designed by aliens. There is no theological position I know of that declares that lower animal societal structure was intended to be a certain way. Now, perhaps there is an undetectable Tiger God who did design tiger social structure. If so, we would never know about it, and as you of all people know, there is no reason to accept the existence of an undetectable Tiger God. To the best of our knowledge, with absolutely no reason of any kind to believe the contrary, there is, then, no animal morality (but again, if I was a tiger and could talk to you, then maybe I could inform you otherwise; I doubt I would).

SO

All of this long drawn out discussion is just meant to prove a very simple point. In the absence of a Designer, objective morality is a myth. Morality is strictly and totally a matter of personal opinion. Whether or not morality is objective is another debate that I intend on taking up after we finish the metaphysical argument we're having right now in the Arguments for God thread.

Quote from: "Jac3510"Technically, I'm not arguing that animals don't have a morality. Unfortunately, I'm not a lion, tiger, or bear, so I can't tell you whether or not they have a moral system. The best I can do is examine them and say, "there doesn't appear to be one." I can go a little further then that, which I will below, but the point remains. Or let's say a super-advanced alien race examined humanity. Unless they could understand our language, would they believe that we had a moral system? There is no reason to think that they would. They would make precisely the same statements about us that we make about animals or rocks. That is, all their statements about our behavior would be descriptive rather than normative. They would say, "When man A kills man B and is caught, and man A is quarantined from the rest of humanity by men C, D, and E." That doesn't yield, "You ought not murder." Description is not prescription. Morality deals with the latter.

I'm not talking about ability to judge another specie's morality. I'm talking about morality, that's a different thing.  Sure these aliens may  only able to describe what they see, but men C, D, and E in your example are prescribing.  They are representative of society at large.  Morality  is a societal construct. US money exists, but there is no gold or anything else of real value to back it, it is simply currency we use to facilitate the running of our country.  Morality is a similar, but more important currency, without it, humanity fails.  My suggestion is that species other than ours could be using a similar currency.  The fact that we don't understand it doesn't matter.  The point is that we can't assume that morality only applies to humans.

Quote from: "Jac3510"My choice to ground morality in the structure of human relationships is a matter of logical necessity. Let me prove it:

1. Something can only be said to be "supposed to be" it is rooted in a supposer's design for the thing to be that way;
2. Human action is commonly said to "supposed to be" a certain way;
3. Therefore, human action is rooted in the design of a supposer.

This is why this is all so important, Mike. When we say "morality is objective" we are talking about an "ought" which logically requires a design, and design, as you know, requires a designer. My rooting objectivity in the intended structure of human society is not arbitary; it is an analytical requirement, just like declaring all unmarried men bachelors is not arbitrary but an analytical requirement.

The best you can do is just deny that morality is objective. That's fine. We haven't had the discussion yet whether or not morality is objective. Just getting people to see what that means is a feat in and of itself. But, for this discussion, the all important point is that if there is no Creator who designed human society, objective morality is absolutely impossible.

For the moment, I'll concede that "supposed to be" is rooted in a designer.  Humankind is the designer of societies.  Humans can make ought statements within a particular social framework.  Ought statements needn't be objective, just supportive of the framework.  

Quote from: "humblesmurph"You reject the morality machine as you have outlined it.  Fair enough.  It still presents an inescapable problem in my view. I purposely referred to this machine as an "entity".  This entity could be supernatural, but not omnipotent. There could be a god of the humans, a being that created humans and endowed them with morality, reason, love, and all the rest.  This god needn't have any hand in the creating of the rest of the physical universe.  You are presuming a omnipotent god is responsible for a thing  that an infinitely less powerful being could be capable of.  

To be clear, I don't believe in anything supernatural, and I don't think that morality is objective.

Quote from: "Jac3510"No, no, no, no. In this thread, I have not presumed that objective morality is rooted in the Creator of the Universe. Logically, it could be that human morality is rooted, objectively, in a higher species. But to say that is to assert that this species designed us for a particular purpose. Again, absolutely the only thing I am trying to show in this thread is that for morality to be objective, it must be rooted in a higher power. It cannot be objective and be rooted in human values, be that individual or societal, or human evolution.

I see. Sorry if you are exasperated. I'll try to keep up.

Quote from: "Jac3510"This, then, is what allows me to logically infer that there is no moral system in rocks or tigers. There appears to be no intended purpose in their societal structure precisely because there appears to be no higher designer. We didn't design them, and there is no evidence that we, or they, we designed by aliens. There is no theological position I know of that declares that lower animal societal structure was intended to be a certain way. Now, perhaps there is an undetectable Tiger God who did design tiger social structure. If so, we would never know about it, and as you of all people know, there is no reason to accept the existence of an undetectable Tiger God. To the best of our knowledge, with absolutely no reason of any kind to believe the contrary, there is, then, no animal morality (but again, if I was a tiger and could talk to you, then maybe I could inform you otherwise; I doubt I would).

As stated above, I don't think that tigers would need a tiger god to have functional morality.  They certainly aren't in the same category as rocks.  What appears to us doesn't matter, I can't assume that tigers don't have morality.  I certainly can't assume that chimps or gorillas or dolphins or aliens don't either.

Quote from: "Jac3510"SO

All of this long drawn out discussion is just meant to prove a very simple point. In the absence of a Designer, objective morality is a myth. Morality is strictly and totally a matter of personal opinion. Whether or not morality is objective is another debate that I intend on taking up after we finish the metaphysical argument we're having right now in the Arguments for God thread.

You go too far Chris. "Personal opinion"?, hardly.  Morality is collectively subjective.  Large numbers of people agree that murder is wrong, it's not just a single person's personal opinion or the arbitrary ruling of very few.  This consensus is certainly not objectivity in the strict sense.  It can be shown objectively that it doesn't fit in our social framework.  It's not objectivity, but it's all we have until God blesses us with some straight answers.

Just because a lot of people agree on something doesn't make it objective, Mike. It just means that a lot of people have the same personal opinion on something. Tell me, if ninety nine kids are making fun of one, does that mean that it is ok for them to do so? Of course not. Objectivity isn't decided by vote, whether the society is small or large. I made it a point very early in this discussion to distinguish between moral absolutism and moral objectivity.

Humans, then, may construct societies, but such human inventions will be the product of human values, and thus, any moral systems that flow from them will be rooted in pure subjectivity. There would be no objective reason to maintain that society's moral system or to exalt its moral values above any you yourself preferred. This is easy enough to demonstrate. Suppose you moved to a hyper-Christian country where the society declared that everyone who did not go to church would be imprisoned as being immoral. You may go to church out of compulsion, but would you regard not going as immoral? Of course not. It doesn't matter what the society agrees on. The question is why they agree upon it. Is there an objective reason, or is it merely subjective personal opinion that lots of people hold in common?

On atheism, it is only the latter. On theism, it is the former.

Quote from: "Jac3510"

Quote from: "Davin"It seems like you're saying with these two paragraphs that in order for objective morality to exist, it would have to be for the purpose of us humans.

I am. For morality to be objective in any species it would have to be connected to that species purpose. That's why morality must be subjective in the absence of a Creator (or, as I conceded, on some level a creator). Broadly speaking, without God, morality cannot be objective.

Now I see the problem, though the terms may look the same, we're talking about two different things. You're talking about objective morality as in morality has an objective (or that humanity has an objective or something has an objective for humanity), while I'm talking about objective morality the same way gravity is objective. Perhaps purposed morality is a term that distinguishes it from the other while also being a term that describes it.

Quote from: "Jac3510"

QuoteUnless we can objectively determine what objective morality is, we're always going to be stuck with subjective morality.

You are confusing epistemology with ontology again. Knowing what something is (epistemology) has no bearing on whether or not that something is (ontology). We've not gotten far enough to talk about how we know what objective morality is, although we've laid the groundwork. We've only talked about what it would mean if it were or were not objective.

This is a misunderstanding of what I said, I made no mention of what exists or not, just what we're stuck with. Without being able to objectively determine what objective morality is, if we're going to even attempt to be moral, then we're left with no option but to use what we can determine, which is subjective morality.

Quote from: "Jac3510"Just because a lot of people agree on something doesn't make it objective, Mike. It just means that a lot of people have the same personal opinion on something. Tell me, if ninety nine kids are making fun of one, does that mean that it is ok for them to do so? Of course not. Objectivity isn't decided by vote, whether the society is small or large. I made it a point very early in this discussion to distinguish between moral absolutism and moral objectivity.

Humans, then, may construct societies, but such human inventions will be the product of human values, and thus, any moral systems that flow from them will be rooted in pure subjectivity. There would be no objective reason to maintain that society's moral system or to exalt its moral values above any you yourself preferred. This is easy enough to demonstrate. Suppose you moved to a hyper-Christian country where the society declared that everyone who did not go to church would be imprisoned as being immoral. You may go to church out of compulsion, but would you regard not going as immoral? Of course not. It doesn't matter what the society agrees on. The question is why they agree upon it. Is there an objective reason, or is it merely subjective personal opinion that lots of people hold in common?

On atheism, it is only the latter. On theism, it is the former.

No no no no no no    I wasn't saying that consensus equals objectivity.  Quite the contrary. I'm saying it's consensus that lets us "know" right from wrong.  You just have to ask the proper question. Take those 99 kids, ask them if it is OK to tease the 1 kid, they would likely say something like "yeah dummy, that's why we are teasing her".  If, however, you were to convene those 100 kids for a vote and tell them that one, and only one, was going to get teased mercilessly till the end of her days, they would vote unanimously against such an action.  That is how we "know" it is wrong for 99 kids to tease 1, regardless of what those 99 kids think at the time.  

  The same for your hyper-Christians.  If you convene all the people in the country and tell them that a group was going to be imprisoned for their beliefs, without knowing which group that was going to be, they would vote unanimously against it. That's how we "know" religious persecution is wrong.

No, it's not objective per se, but it isn't nearly as will nilly as you seem to imply. It's certainly better than an appeal to religion.  I've met literally thousands of theists, and talked religion at length with over a hundred just in my college and bartending experience, none, not one, had the insight that you hold regarding Christianity (I've read your blog).  Wouldn't it seem to you that the mythical vote is a simpler and more effective way to determine functional morality than trying to decipher what God's moral objectivity is?  Likely, the end results would be much the same no?

Quote from: "Davin"Now I see the problem, though the terms may look the same, we're talking about two different things. You're talking about objective morality as in morality has an objective (or that humanity has an objective or something has an objective for humanity), while I'm talking about objective morality the same way gravity is objective. Perhaps purposed morality is a term that distinguishes it from the other while also being a term that describes it.

Much closer, but still off, in my view, by a hair. I am saying that morality is objective in just the same sense that gravity is. I am saying, however, that the reason it is objective is that it is rooted in a definite and intended human social structure. If there is a definite and intended human structure, then morality is just as objective as gravity is. A moral statement in that context can be objectively true for objective reasons even if you disagree with it. In short, you can be wrong about your moral opinions, just like scientists can be wrong about gravity.

QuoteThis is a misunderstanding of what I said, I made no mention of what exists or not, just what we're stuck with. Without being able to objectively determine what objective morality is, if we're going to even attempt to be moral, then we're left with no option but to use what we can determine, which is subjective morality.

Yes, you said that we are stuck with subjective morality, which is an epistemological, not ontological issue (unless you mean that "unless we can discover that morality is objective, we have to assume it is really subjective," in which case, I just disagree).

I suspect that what you mean is that no matter how our debate goes, we all have to go out and do right and wrong today, and that our decisions to do right or wrong are ultimately based on our value systems, our relationship to society, etc., and those things are subjective. And, of course, you are right. I can choose what I want to value. But if morality is objective, I can choose to do something that I believe is wrong because I just want to.

Suppose someone angers me and I decide I want to kill them. Suppose that I know I am going to be caught and executed. Knowing the consequences, suppose that I decide that my vengeance is more important to satisfy than my desire for life or the happiness of others. I can acknowledge that murder is wrong, and say I don't care, and just do it anyway. When I say, "I can acknowledge murder is wrong," that only makes sense if morality is objective in the sense that I am describing it. If it is just a personal construct, then murder is good, because it is in accordance with my values. If it is a societal construct, then it is wrong only if the society I am in decides that vengeance is wrong. Either way, it's all a matter of personal value system, be it singular or collective. In that sense, to say it is "wrong" is only to say, "I am doing something that other people would rather I not do."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote from: "humblesmurph"No no no no no no  ;)

Quote from: "Jac3510"Hey Kerbert,

Rather than line-by-line your reply and create a motherload of a tl;dr, let me boil everything down into two basic points. Please, if in doing so, I miss anything at all you feel needs commenting on (even if it turns out to be your whole reply!) just let me know and I will immediately comment on that specifically. Fair enough?

"If your post requires a tl;dr section, then you have failed as a writer." Not sure where I got that quote from...  Anyways, on with the actual content of this discussion.

Quote from: "Jac3510"1. It seems to me that your central value is social happiness, which stands in distinction to ethical egoism (in which happiness of the individual is the basic value pursued). Now, first, let me comment positively that this view is at least "objective" in a weak sense of the word, although not in the sense I am pressing. By that, I mean we can have a rational argument about what will bring about the most happiness for any given course of action and then label that action as the one that "ought" to be done. Further, I don't have a particularly pragmatic problem with the approach as it probably provides a fairly good test to help us discover the good (although I'm here presuming morality is objective as I mean it).

You don't think the desire to propagate happiness is objective? That's the most basic pretext of the concept of motivation. Every animal organism feels an equivalent of what we consider happiness as a motivation to do anything. Happiness could possibly be defined as what we feel as a result of achieving an outcome we want. So, wanting to propagate a good feeling that is achieved through behaviors that have been naturally selected for.  I think that's pretty damn objective.

I don't see it being any more or less objective than your god explanation: That's just the nature he programmed into the universe. I say that's just the nature of life. "I believe in God, only I spell it Nature." ~ Frank Lloyd Wright. It did itself. You don't need a designer to bring about an evolutionary process. This is getting closer to my area of expertise. And at the point where a natural process can be explained by natural laws, it really doesn't make sense to postulate an infinitely complex, thing that's supposed to be everywhere, but is for some reason, unobservable.

Okay, so you want to know why happiness ought to be sought after? Because it makes people happy. Isn't that enough?  Asking, "Why do we want to be happy?" is somewhat pointless. Happiness is the reason we want things! We want to be happy because we've got 3,000,000,000 years of programming to vet us into certain behaviors that make us want to behave in such a way that propagates happiness.

Maybe you don't think that's objective, but if it's not, I'm still content with that.  I can live with subjective morality, I don't care. As long as I am making people around me happy, and making myself happy, I am content that my life is moral.  If making other people happy isn't enough motivation for some philosopher I encounter, and he thinks that's just a subjective opinion, I can live with that. I am content.

Quote from: "Jac3510"With that said, I have two objections.

First, there seems to be no objective reason to adopt it. You state that egoism is a pre-conventional morality, but that doesn't make it wrong. People beliefs, whether past, present, or future have no bearing on a statement's truth-value.

Oh no, not wrong. Just less mentally developed. For young children, the only morality is making sure your parents give you a cookie instead of a spanking.  There is an objective reason to adopt it: IT'S OUR NATURE. It's programmed in by illions of years of natural selection, similar to the way you claim morality has been programmed in by God.

Quote from: "Jac3510"You are assuming here that happiness (rather than survival as I originally commented on) is the proper value, and more specifically, the happiness of others. Now, I want to say here, "That may be true, but . . ." and yet I can't. I can't because the statement "that may be true" implies that the statement "The happiness of others ought to be sought" is an objective statement with a truth value in and of itself. But who says that it is? On what basis? There is no objective reason for accepting even your position. It is still just as subjective as anything else, which means morality is still reduced to nothing more than personal opinion.

No, happiness of everyone. If you make yourself happy (unless it's at the expense of others) that's completely moral to me. I don't think people depriving themselves of something they want are doing anything particularly moral.  Happiness ought to be sought because it is our motivator.  If a donkey has a carrot dangling in front of it, and a stick behind it, the donkey ought to move forward. This has an objective truth value because the aggregation of every attribute of donkey's results in the donkey behaving this way.  So maybe it's just a matter of donkey opinion that eating a carrot is preferable to getting beaten. Maybe it's not grounded in God, and maybe that makes it subjective to you.  But I say, living beings do what they are a naturally motivated to do. That's objective enough for me.

Quote from: "Jac3510"Second, I can't agree with your conflation of inevitability and objectivity. To say,"People ought to behave such and such a way
because they were bound to learn to act that way" doesn't address the fundamental issue, which is why should I behave as people are bound to behave? What objective reason can be provided to explain why I ought to adopt your value system? You can't appeal to your personal value to answer that, because it just begs the question.

They should behave that way because it is their nature? That makes sense as an objective fact to me. I still don't understand why this objective source of morality must be god, and not Karma, or a morality dispensing machine. They all make the same amount of sense, and there's no real reason to pick one over the other.

I'm afraid I failed to understand why you don't think a machine wired to our brains programming our behavior wouldn't be objective. Isn't that basically what god is in your scenario? He designed our behavior to be consitent with his nature. The machine programs our behavior to be consistent with its nature. Am I missing something in this analogy?

Quote from: "Jac3510"2. You ask how it is that morality is objective with God. The question is fair. I have said repeatedly, and you have acknowledged, that I am not a deontologist. We don't root morality in God's command (although if we did, the worst we could say is that morality is objective for us, being His creations, even if it is subjective for Him. He is, after all, God!). It is rooted in the intention of God concerning the created order.

Okay, so god invented right and wrong in such a way that is consistent with his nature, and we now think of this state of the universe as good and bad.  But, I have demonstrated sufficiently how we would come to think the same way even if there is NO Invisible Pink Unicorn.  So, why should I believe that there is a God?  What is there in observable reality that cannot be explained through any means other than an omniscient creator?  The correct answer to this is: Nothing.

You seem to say that objective morality is too complicated to be grounded in anything but omniscient consciousness. But any creator capable of designing all the universe and installing it with moral laws, would have to be infinitely more complex. You can't answer for complexity by postulating more complexity.  The argument shoots itself in the foot.

Quote from: "Jac3510"Let me give you an example.

Did you ever see The Little Mermaid? Do you remember the scene where Ariel uses the fork as a hair brush? She saw this strange thing and just assumed that it was to be used on her hair. Of course, she was wrong. That's not what a fork is for at all. It wasn't designed to brush hair. The fact that it can do serve that purpose is neither here nor their. Its purpose is for eating. Ariel was wrong, sincerely and ignorantly so, about its purpose. But she could only be wrong if it had an actual purpose, and it could only have a purpose if it was designed by an intelligent designer.

God created the universe to work according to certain laws. We study them every day in the laboratory. Morality is precisely the same way, which is why it used to be called "the moral law." Mankind is intended to be kind to one another. That intention provides the basis for an objective ought. Let me, however, make a STRONG word of caution. I am NOT saying that the objective basis provides an epistemic test for what we ought to do in any given test. Part of the problem with modern ethics is that they confuse the question "How do I know right from wrong" with the question "What is right and wrong." I am simply offering why it is that morals can be objective if God exists. His intentions, in any case, are rooted in His nature, not His commands (which is something philosophers are very well aware of when discussion practical reason).

Or, perhaps there is no intention. No higher purpose. Maybe this universe is just a universe. Maybe we weren't meant to use the fork in any way. The fork is just there, make what you want of it.

So the confusion, you perceive, is between the questions "How do I know right from wrong" with the question "What is right and wrong." You seem to dodge both of these. You say we know right from wrong because God just made it that way, and it's pre-programmed in. And you keep saying that the latter question is irrelevant to your position of objectivity.  Both of these sound like copouts to me.

Quote from: "Jac3510"So here's the practical take away:

Someone asks you, "Why should I be kind," you answer, "Because it increases happiness." They respond, "Why should I care about increasing happiness," you can only respond, in whatever words you choose, "Because you should!"

You should be kind because it makes you happy, and makes others around you happy.  You all want to be happy because that's the motivation behind all action, it's an inescapable part of the nature of existence.  I don't see a problem with that, it seems objective to me, and I have no clue what I'm missing.

Quote from: "Jac3510"Someone asks me, "Why should I be kind," I answer, "Because God created social relationships to be couched in kindness." They respond, "Why would God create the world in such a way," and I respond, "Because it is consistent with His nature."


Notice that in your answer, we ought to do something relative to a value system, which makes it subjective, because everyone has the right to their own value system. In my answer, we ought to to something relative to the way reality is structured, which makes it objective, because people do not have the right to their own realities.

And why is that consistent with his nature? Is kindness good because God wills it, or does God will kindness because it is good? Does this God answer to any form of morality, or is it just a random contention that he's had since the dawn of time? Why is God this way? If he's conscious, then he must be capable of thought. How did God come to the conclusion that being moral was preferable?  When you bring your moral argument up to a God scale, it falls apart like Newton's laws do at the speed of light.

People don't have a right to their own realities. What I fail to understand is WHY you think god is real. You say: If God is real, then morality is objective. If morality is not objective, it's not meaningful enough. I prefer to think that morality is objective, therefore I must hold the contention that God is real.  That's simply not a valid argument.

Quote from: "Jac3510"Thanks for reply, and no, you certainly did not disappoint. If you think it is refreshing to talk to a theist who rejects deontology, I find it just as refreshing to talk to a non-theist who is willing to engage in serious dialogue on this rather than just accuse me of Bible thumping. :p

Based on what I've seen you say, you must be too smart to be a bible thumper. There's a severe intellectual difference between saying, "The nature of existence has been set by an infinite consciousness of the universe." And saying, "There was a 900 year old man 6000 years ago who built a giant fucking boat and rounded up to of every animal!" Only one of those technically makes sense.  I am interested to know, based on all you have said about "design," you do accept evolution, right? Perhaps this belongs on another thread...

This has definitely been interesting, but I am ready to concede that morality is subjective now.  You're definition of objective morality has been pinholed to the point where it is absolutely meaningless unless I accept all your premises about God being an omnipotent creator of the universe who endowed human beings with a purpose, and a moral nature.  I'd rather just say that happiness is a subjective opinion than have to go all out in favor of something so unsubstantiated.

Morality isn't really objective in the same sense as gravity. There is no morality on a lifeless asteroid, or the center of the sun. Morality inhabits a conscious mind. You have made a very convincing argument that it doesn't matter if we all agree that being kind is moral, because that doesn't make it right. But I think that this is wrong. All morality is societally defined. We stick with it because society agrees with it. And society agrees with it because we're motivated to be happy.  Very simple, I don't think I have anything else to say.

Quote from: "Jac3510"I would, though, challenge you on this. Forgive me for being blunt, but I don't think you are being honest with yourself. Were the Aztecs right or wrong when they engaged in human sacrifice? Were Southerner's right or wrong when they had slaves? Those societies defined those things as right. You'll say they are wrong, which you can only say if morality is objective. You must say that slavery and human sacrifice is not wrong and was not wrong in those cultures. You could fall back on your other argument that it was wrong because it didn't increase everyone's happiness (certainly not of the victims and of the slaves!), but then you have to abandon your statement that morality is socially defined. You can't eat your cake and have it to. One of these can't be true. And, again, if you fall back on your happiness argument, you still have to contend with the fact that you think some things are, in fact, right that reduce individual's happiness. At that point, you are very close to utilitarianism, which gets you right back into justifying slavery. And beyond that, the Aztecs and racist South serve as two historical examples of people who would have said "So what?" to your subjective moral compass. They just would have disagreed with you. You would have absolutely no basis on telling them they ought to have done anything any differently. If they were aware of evolution, they could have just laughed and said, "So what? The only reason we have this desire to make people happy is because it helped the species survive? Well forget it, then. There is nothing binding about that at all. Now, somebody get the shackles, and I'll get the altar ready. We're gonna have us some barbeque tonight!" What is there to say in response to that? Absolutely nothing. You can complain that its just pre-convention morality, but the "So what?" question will come back again.

Sorry. If God doesn't exist--if humans don't have an intended purpose--then morality is totally objective. Murder and chocolate ice cream. That's it.

You have the very same "so what?" problem with objective morality. Go back to those in the U.S. who said that they know gods moral laws and that they are allowed by god to own slaves and just tell them that slavery is wrong. They'll say you don't know about gods laws because it says so plain and clear in the bible that slavery is OK.

Even better, go back to the Aztec's and tell them that you understand objective morality and gods will and they'll probably say that that isn't their god or their gods objective morality. The "so what?" question comes back to you every time as well.

So what do you have that shows that your version of objective morality isn't just something subjectively created by your and other people's minds?

Quote from: "Davin"You have the very same "so what?" problem with objective morality. Go back to those in the U.S. who said that they know gods moral laws and that they are allowed by god to own slaves and just tell them that slavery is wrong. They'll say you don't know about gods laws because it says so plain and clear in the bible that slavery is OK.

Even better, go back to the Aztec's and tell them that you understand objective morality and gods will and they'll probably say that that isn't their god or their gods objective morality. The "so what?" question comes back to you every time as well.

So what do you have that shows that your version of objective morality isn't just something subjectively created by your and other people's minds?

No, they wouldn't say to me "So what?" They would say, "No, you are wrong that this is not what God intended."

Therein lies the difference.

edit:

To press the point, if I say to someone that they ought not do something and explain to them why, and they say, "so what?"--all they are saying is that they don't care about the way reality works. That's fine. There is a fundamental difference in them not carrying about the way reality works and not caring about my personal value system. Just because morality is objective, that doesn't mean that people will abide by it. In fact, as you know, they often don't care what is supposed to be the case. That is the very reason we can condemn them for it, because they doing what is really wrong.

In the second place, saying "you have the same problem" is a logical fallacy called tu quoque. Even if I do have the same problem, that doesn't change the fact that Kerbert's has the problem. He thinks his position is, for the most part, objective, although he admits subjectivity to a degree. I'm pointing out that it is necessarily 100% subjective. Whether or not mine is subjective (and it isn't, since it is rooted in the nature of reality) doesn't change the fact his is. To point to a fault in my argument is logically invalid.

Quote from: "Jac3510"

Quote from: "Davin"You have the very same "so what?" problem with objective morality. Go back to those in the U.S. who said that they know gods moral laws and that they are allowed by god to own slaves and just tell them that slavery is wrong. They'll say you don't know about gods laws because it says so plain and clear in the bible that slavery is OK.

Even better, go back to the Aztec's and tell them that you understand objective morality and gods will and they'll probably say that that isn't their god or their gods objective morality. The "so what?" question comes back to you every time as well.

So what do you have that shows that your version of objective morality isn't just something subjectively created by your and other people's minds?

No, they wouldn't say to me "So what?" They would say, "No, you are wrong that this is not what God intended."

Hey, your fictional situation is just as valid as mine. You can't say that they wouldn't in my example, however I can, because it's my example. I could easily say they'd say "so what?" to you just as you said they'd just say "so what?" to KerbertX. Really, neither one of us knows (or is even remotely sure) what someone would say to a time traveling stranger telling them how to live.

Quote from: "Jac3510"To press the point, if I say to someone that they ought not do something and explain to them why, and they say, "so what?"--all they are saying is that they don't care about the way reality works. That's fine. There is a fundamental difference in them not carrying about the way reality works and not caring about my personal value system. Just because morality is objective, that doesn't mean that people will abide by it. In fact, as you know, they often don't care what is supposed to be the case. That is the very reason we can condemn them for it, because they doing what is really wrong.

How are they really wrong?

Quote from: "Jac3510"In the second place, saying "you have the same problem" is a logical fallacy called tu quoque.

Incorrect, it would have been the logical fallacy "tu quoque" if I had said that "because you have the same problem that makes your argument invalid." Throwing around the names of fallacies is much better when you understand what the fallacies are. All I said was that you have the very same problem you claim that exists with KerbertX's. I made no attempt to dismiss your argument, I even asked you clearly, "So what do you have that shows that your version of objective morality isn't just something subjectively created by your and other people's minds?" I didn't say anything close to, "you have the same problem therefore your argument is invalid." In fact I never even said that your argument was invalid, just pointed out that the problem you pointed out also applies to your argument, then asked you how you solved the problem.

Quote from: "Jac3510"Even if I do have the same problem, that doesn't change the fact that Kerbert's has the problem.

I do not disagree, why are you even saying this?

Quote from: "Jac3510"He thinks his position is, for the most part, objective, although he admits subjectivity to a degree. I'm pointing out that it is necessarily 100% subjective.

I'm not arguing for KerbertX, I was asking you a question... which you didn't answer.

Quote from: "Jac3510"Whether or not mine is subjective (and it isn't, since it is rooted in the nature of reality) doesn't change the fact his is.

The only part of this sentence I disagree with is that if you're going to go around saying that your version of morality "is rooted in the nature of reality," you're going to have to fulfill that pesky burden making a positive claim entails.

Quote from: "Jac3510"To point to a fault in my argument is logically invalid.

Are you sure? I think it's perfectly logically valid to point to faults in your argument. I'm going to assume that you didn't really mean this, is that correct?

Now that you've just wasted a bunch of time saying things that didn't need to be said, please just answer the question: So what do you have that shows that your version of objective morality isn't just something subjectively created by your and other people's minds?

Again, my intention is to address this thread at length and with rigour, but for now, I have just one question for JAC:

Do you really believe that 'objective morality' exists, and that it is predicated upon the whim of a single entity?

My objection to this is clear. Unless the entity you are talking about is the universe, in which case we can dismiss the entire concept of objective morality, because the universe doesn't give a crap about how we behave, then any morality based on the whim of a single entity, divine or not, is necessarily subjective. Again, this is definitional. It doesn't matter whether or not you think that this entity is in some way special. If morality is rooted in the opinion of what one entity thinks is right, then it isn't objective, and that's even before we get into Euthypro's dilemma.

Actually, that brings me to a corrollary question:

If you think that morality comes from your imaginary friend, and you believed that said imaginary friend had commanded you to commit an act that you found morally reprehensible, such as sacrificing one of your children, or forcing a rape victim to marry her attacker, would you do it?

It seems to me that if whatever your answer to this question, you can't win, and that's not because it's like asking you if you have stopped beating your wife, but because the answer will either demonstrate that you have no morality, or that your morality is superior to that of your magic man.

Quote from: NinjaJesus on August 20, 2010, 06:14:50 PM
So Pascal's wager is pretty much 'you might as well believe in god because if he exists then your going to heaven for believing' right?

Pascal's wager says something quite different.


1.  Either God exists or God does not exist, and you can either wager for God or wager against God. The utilities of the relevant possible outcomes are as follows, where f1, f2, and f3 are numbers whose values are not specified beyond the requirement that they be finite:

                            God exists   God does not exist
Wager for God                 ∞            f1
Wager against God         f2            f3

2.  Rationality requires the probability that you assign to God existing to be positive, and not infinitesimal.
3.  Rationality requires you to perform the act of maximum expected utility (when there is one).
4.  Conclusion 1. Rationality requires you to wager for God.
5.  Conclusion 2. You should wager for God.

What "wagering for God" means has been a subject of considerable debate for a few centuries, and Pascal addresses it directly by saying, in effect, "this is too important to scoff at, so I'd suggest you give your all to diligently figure it out."

Which of the thousands of gods should one then bet on though?

It still comes down to that, does it not?

Quote from: Asmodean on November 05, 2011, 09:59:45 PM
Which of the thousands of gods should one then bet on though?

It still comes down to that, does it not?

Pascal's Wager is valuable as a launching point to one aggressively seeking out an answer this very question.

Concerning those who throw up their hands as you've done in your above point and seek no further, Pascal shares some strong words in Pensee' 194:  "This carelessness in a matter which concerns themselves, their eternity, their all, moves me more to anger than pity; it astonishes and shocks me; it is to me monstrous."

Quote from: bandit4god on November 06, 2011, 12:25:38 AM
Pascal's Wager is valuable as a launching point to one aggressively seeking out an answer this very question.

Concerning those who throw up their hands as you've done in your above point and seek no further, Pascal shares some strong words in Pensee' 194:  "This carelessness in a matter which concerns themselves, their eternity, their all, moves me more to anger than pity; it astonishes and shocks me; it is to me monstrous."

Actually, I opt not to wager at all since such a wager is useless to me within the scope of my plans.

Quote from: Asmodean on November 06, 2011, 12:35:43 AM

Quote from: bandit4god on November 06, 2011, 12:25:38 AM
Pascal's Wager is valuable as a launching point to one aggressively seeking out an answer this very question.

Concerning those who throw up their hands as you've done in your above point and seek no further, Pascal shares some strong words in Pensee' 194:  "This carelessness in a matter which concerns themselves, their eternity, their all, moves me more to anger than pity; it astonishes and shocks me; it is to me monstrous."

Actually, I opt not to wager at all since such a wager is useless to me within the scope of my plans.

It's as though you're having a conversation with ol' BP himself!  From Pensee' 223:
"'...God is, or He is not.' But to which side shall we incline? Reason can decide nothing here. There is an infinite chaos which separated us. A game is being played at the extremity of this infinite distance where heads or tails will turn up. What will you wager? According to reason, you can do neither the one thing nor the other; according to reason, you can defend neither of the propositions.

Do not, then, reprove for error those who have made a choice; for you know nothing about it. 'No, but I blame them for having made, not this choice, but a choice; for again both he who chooses heads and he who chooses tails are equally at fault, they are both in the wrong. The true course is not to wager at all.'

Yes; but you must wager. It is not optional. You are embarked. Which will you choose then?"

Is it not clear that each person must wager his/her life for or against God existing?

Quote from: bandit4god on November 06, 2011, 12:57:01 AM
Is it not clear that each person must wager his/her life for or against God existing?

Nope. You can also just not give a fuck.

EDIT: Should probably provide a bit more of a comment...

One can look at it this way: If gods exist and you bet against it, in the afterlife you go to their respective versions of hell OR you just don't get an afterlife.

If you end up in a hell, well woo-hoo! You are dead, yet you still exist. Nice. Then you can start making the best out of your stay there... Research into permanently destroying "souls"... MUST be money and glory in that. If you end up with no afterlife at all, then what does it matter?

If you bet for gods' existence and they do not exist, you may potentially spend a large portion of your life trying to get approval of something that isn't there. Time you could probably better spend elsewhere, I might add.

If you bet on gods and there are such either you bet one the wrong one and are probably back to scenario one or the right one in which case... What? Paradise? How do you know that it actually IS better than scenario one? Ok, you still wake up dead and that is probably a cool sensation, but what if your happiness requires someone else's suffering..? Some paradise that would be.

One CAN look at it this way, but personally, I dont. Because as I see it, it doesn't matter in any case. I'll deal with the afterlife, whatever shape or form it might take, if (And that is one big mother of an "if") I get there. Simple as that.

Quote from: Asmodean on November 06, 2011, 01:03:19 AM

Quote from: bandit4god on November 06, 2011, 12:57:01 AM
Is it not clear that each person must wager his/her life for or against God existing?

Nope. You can also just not give a fuck.

Indeed.
Banditforgod, if your god exists, don't you think he's kind of an asshole for condemning countless unbelievers to eternal damnation? I'm sure you're a nice guy. I'm sure we'd have a good time talking philosophy over a beer or two. But, at the end of the day, I'm burning in hell (being cut off from paradise, or whatever...) according to you (or your god).
Do you really want to hang out with a dude for all eternity that would do such a thing? If I am on the losing side of the wager, I'm thinking my "soul" will be more ethically at ease hanging with Satan, flying our middle fingers at your egomaniacal god.

When I was a christian, I always thought that if I ended up in hell I'd just pray for God to forgive me/come rescue me from hell.

If I'm conscious enough to suffer, I should be conscious enough to seek forgiveness and what's God going to do? Say "nope! too late! you're dead!" That seems silly.

Course now the whole prospect of hell seems silly.

Quote from: NinjaJesus on August 20, 2010, 06:14:50 PM
So Pascal's wager is pretty much 'you might as well believe in god because if he exists then your going to heaven for believing' right?
Well i was thinking surely if you don't believe in God but lead a good life as an atheist (helping people, giving to charity ECT..) AND you die and God does exist if he is all loving and forgiving as Christians believe SURELY he would allow you into heaven?

For example an Atheist and a Christian both die and meet God ( I'm an Atheist so this is purely hypothetical). Both have been Good all their lives, Yet the Atheist has been Good because he helped fellow human beings and for the good of humanity rather than the Christian who may of just thought 'if i do good things then i will be allowed into heaven when i die'

I know several people who don't particularly like me being an atheist and always seem to revert to the old 'well at least I'm not going to hell' comeback in arguments but put this way surely the atheist is the better person? The atheist did the good things without expecting a reward, he expected that once he died he would simply decompose and be recycled.

So surely those who live their lives by pascals wager should reconsider, and not do good things out of what is ultimately selfishness and in fact think:

If I do good without religion and there is in fact a God when I die, surely doing these good things completely selflessly would in fact be as good (or better) than doing them in the name of the Church?

Basically if there were a God, he'd let you into heaven even if you hadn't believed in him but had lived a good life. Atheists have no worries either way.

I long ago concluded exactly this. 

Ahhh, Pascal again.
I love Pascal's stuff.
And Pascall's wrapper, such wisdom.

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F3MyqS.jpg&hash=bf83a9eae4d2ebaecf5784caccdced7df1d40d5a)

Wh..!  :o

It's PUDDING! He's BACK!  :D

Quote from: Asmodean on November 06, 2011, 10:13:42 AM
Wh..!  :o

It's PUDDING! He's BACK!  :D

Yaaaaaaa! Woot!!

Greetings, Oh Puddingy One.

Quote from: Asmodean on November 06, 2011, 01:03:19 AM

Quote from: bandit4god on November 06, 2011, 12:57:01 AM
Is it not clear that each person must wager his/her life for or against God existing?

Nope. You can also just not give a fuck.

EDIT: Should probably provide a bit more of a comment...

One can look at it this way: If gods exist and you bet against it, in the afterlife you go to their respective versions of hell OR you just don't get an afterlife.

If you end up in a hell, well woo-hoo! You are dead, yet you still exist. Nice. Then you can start making the best out of your stay there... Research into permanently destroying "souls"... MUST be money and glory in that. If you end up with no afterlife at all, then what does it matter?

If you bet for gods' existence and they do not exist, you may potentially spend a large portion of your life trying to get approval of something that isn't there. Time you could probably better spend elsewhere, I might add.

If you bet on gods and there are such either you bet one the wrong one and are probably back to scenario one or the right one in which case... What? Paradise? How do you know that it actually IS better than scenario one? Ok, you still wake up dead and that is probably a cool sensation, but what if your happiness requires someone else's suffering..? Some paradise that would be.

One CAN look at it this way, but personally, I dont. Because as I see it, it doesn't matter in any case. I'll deal with the afterlife, whatever shape or form it might take, if (And that is one big mother of an "if") I get there. Simple as that.

I agree with this, especially the not giving a fuck part.

Quote from: Davin on November 07, 2011, 05:06:47 PM

Quote from: Asmodean on November 06, 2011, 01:03:19 AM

Quote from: bandit4god on November 06, 2011, 12:57:01 AM
Is it not clear that each person must wager his/her life for or against God existing?

Nope. You can also just not give a fuck.

EDIT: Should probably provide a bit more of a comment...

One can look at it this way: If gods exist and you bet against it, in the afterlife you go to their respective versions of hell OR you just don't get an afterlife.

If you end up in a hell, well woo-hoo! You are dead, yet you still exist. Nice. Then you can start making the best out of your stay there... Research into permanently destroying "souls"... MUST be money and glory in that. If you end up with no afterlife at all, then what does it matter?

If you bet for gods' existence and they do not exist, you may potentially spend a large portion of your life trying to get approval of something that isn't there. Time you could probably better spend elsewhere, I might add.

If you bet on gods and there are such either you bet one the wrong one and are probably back to scenario one or the right one in which case... What? Paradise? How do you know that it actually IS better than scenario one? Ok, you still wake up dead and that is probably a cool sensation, but what if your happiness requires someone else's suffering..? Some paradise that would be.

One CAN look at it this way, but personally, I dont. Because as I see it, it doesn't matter in any case. I'll deal with the afterlife, whatever shape or form it might take, if (And that is one big mother of an "if") I get there. Simple as that.

I agree with this, especially the not giving a fuck part.

The simplest maxims of decision theory would suggest that a rational actor select the option with the highest "utility".  In uncertainty systems, in which the state of the world across two or more variants is unknown, utility is simply a matter of the value to the actor.  In risk systems, utility is defined as the product of the probability of the outcome and the outcome's value to the actor.

Take a game of chance involving two coin flips, and the required wager is $1.  If you flip heads-heads during your two flips, you win $4.  If you flip anything else, you simply lose your dollar.  This is an obvious case of a risk system, and the way to calculate whether I should wager or not is sum the utilities of the system.  If the sum is greater than zero, I should rationally play.

-$1 + (0.25 * $4) = 0

In this case, it's a wash.  Play or not play, rationality per decision theory does not make a case either way.

Now let's change the game a bit.  The wager is still $1, but the return on heads-heads is $12.

-$1 + (0.25 * $12) = $2

Should I play now?  Definitely!!

Now another change to the game--last time, I promise.  Now the wager is still $1, but game is a ten coin flips.  If all of the flips are heads, you gain $10 trillion.  If not, you still lose the dollar.  Does it still make sense to wager?

"But this is no parallel to wagering on God," you say, "because there are many gods one could choose from."  With so much on the line, does it not make sense to find the game with the best odds (the highest probability, even if it's only 10^-100)?  But to be fair, if you find that the probability of any god existing is absolutely zero, this logic does not apply because the utlity would be zero.

Quote from: bandit4god on November 07, 2011, 08:05:52 PMThe simplest maxims of decision theory would suggest that a rational actor select the option with the highest "utility".  In uncertainty systems, in which the state of the world across two or more variants is unknown, utility is simply a matter of the value to the actor.  In risk systems, utility is defined as the product of the probability of the outcome and the outcome's value to the actor.

Take a game of chance involving two coin flips, and the required wager is $1.  If you flip heads-heads during your two flips, you win $4.  If you flip anything else, you simply lose your dollar.  This is an obvious case of a risk system, and the way to calculate whether I should wager or not is sum the utilities of the system.  If the sum is greater than zero, I should rationally play.

-$1 + (0.25 * $4) = 0

In this case, it's a wash.  Play or not play, rationality per decision theory does not make a case either way.

Now let's change the game a bit.  The wager is still $1, but the return on heads-heads is $12.

-$1 + (0.25 * $12) = $2

Should I play now?  Definitely!!

Now another change to the game--last time, I promise.  Now the wager is still $1, but game is a ten coin flips.  If all of the flips are heads, you gain $10 trillion.  If not, you still lose the dollar.  Does it still make sense to wager?

"But this is no parallel to wagering on God," you say, "because there are many gods one could choose from."  With so much on the line, does it not make sense to find the game with the best odds (the highest probability, even if it's only 10^-100)?  But to be fair, if you find that the probability of any god existing is absolutely zero, this logic does not apply because the utlity would be zero.

Or the rational actor would simply not play the game and keep the dollar.

Edit: I suppose I could elaborate a little:

If you're going to equate a coin toss to a god (let alone the chance that a god has made an eternal playground for humans after we die... let alone the god even cares about humans... and let alone that there even is an "after we die" even if there is a god), then it's:
It's $1 every Sunday, everytime you speak up for the bet and everytime you think about the bet
You only "win" on some unknown combination of heads or tails
The prize is not specified
Person who is supposed to provide the prize has no evidence of its existence
No one has ever been shown to have been paid out

Quote from: bandit4god on November 07, 2011, 08:05:52 PM

Quote from: Davin on November 07, 2011, 05:06:47 PM

Quote from: Asmodean on November 06, 2011, 01:03:19 AM

Quote from: bandit4god on November 06, 2011, 12:57:01 AM
Is it not clear that each person must wager his/her life for or against God existing?

Nope. You can also just not give a fuck.

EDIT: Should probably provide a bit more of a comment...

One can look at it this way: If gods exist and you bet against it, in the afterlife you go to their respective versions of hell OR you just don't get an afterlife.

If you end up in a hell, well woo-hoo! You are dead, yet you still exist. Nice. Then you can start making the best out of your stay there... Research into permanently destroying "souls"... MUST be money and glory in that. If you end up with no afterlife at all, then what does it matter?

If you bet for gods' existence and they do not exist, you may potentially spend a large portion of your life trying to get approval of something that isn't there. Time you could probably better spend elsewhere, I might add.

If you bet on gods and there are such either you bet one the wrong one and are probably back to scenario one or the right one in which case... What? Paradise? How do you know that it actually IS better than scenario one? Ok, you still wake up dead and that is probably a cool sensation, but what if your happiness requires someone else's suffering..? Some paradise that would be.

One CAN look at it this way, but personally, I dont. Because as I see it, it doesn't matter in any case. I'll deal with the afterlife, whatever shape or form it might take, if (And that is one big mother of an "if") I get there. Simple as that.

I agree with this, especially the not giving a fuck part.

The simplest maxims of decision theory would suggest that a rational actor select the option with the highest "utility".  In uncertainty systems, in which the state of the world across two or more variants is unknown, utility is simply a matter of the value to the actor.  In risk systems, utility is defined as the product of the probability of the outcome and the outcome's value to the actor.

Take a game of chance involving two coin flips, and the required wager is $1.  If you flip heads-heads during your two flips, you win $4.  If you flip anything else, you simply lose your dollar.  This is an obvious case of a risk system, and the way to calculate whether I should wager or not is sum the utilities of the system.  If the sum is greater than zero, I should rationally play.

-$1 + (0.25 * $4) = 0

In this case, it's a wash.  Play or not play, rationality per decision theory does not make a case either way.

Now let's change the game a bit.  The wager is still $1, but the return on heads-heads is $12.

-$1 + (0.25 * $12) = $2

Should I play now?  Definitely!!

Now another change to the game--last time, I promise.  Now the wager is still $1, but game is a ten coin flips.  If all of the flips are heads, you gain $10 trillion.  If not, you still lose the dollar.  Does it still make sense to wager?

"But this is no parallel to wagering on God," you say, "because there are many gods one could choose from."  With so much on the line, does it not make sense to find the game with the best odds (the highest probability, even if it's only 10^-100)?  But to be fair, if you find that the probability of any god existing is absolutely zero, this logic does not apply because the utlity would be zero.

Irrelevant meaningless word salad.

Quote from: bandit4god on November 07, 2011, 08:05:52 PM
"But this is no parallel to wagering on God," you say, "because there are many gods one could choose from."  With so much on the line, does it not make sense to find the game with the best odds (the highest probability, even if it's only 10^-100)?  But to be fair, if you find that the probability of any god existing is absolutely zero, this logic does not apply because the utlity would be zero.

No, it makes more sense to keep the dollar and not gamble with it to begin with. A dollar in hand is better than ten frogs in the... No, wait... That's not how the saying went...  :-\

Quote from: Davin on November 07, 2011, 08:13:07 PM

Quote from: bandit4god on November 07, 2011, 08:05:52 PMThe simplest maxims of decision theory would suggest that a rational actor select the option with the highest "utility".  In uncertainty systems, in which the state of the world across two or more variants is unknown, utility is simply a matter of the value to the actor.  In risk systems, utility is defined as the product of the probability of the outcome and the outcome's value to the actor.

Take a game of chance involving two coin flips, and the required wager is $1.  If you flip heads-heads during your two flips, you win $4.  If you flip anything else, you simply lose your dollar.  This is an obvious case of a risk system, and the way to calculate whether I should wager or not is sum the utilities of the system.  If the sum is greater than zero, I should rationally play.

-$1 + (0.25 * $4) = 0

In this case, it's a wash.  Play or not play, rationality per decision theory does not make a case either way.

Now let's change the game a bit.  The wager is still $1, but the return on heads-heads is $12.

-$1 + (0.25 * $12) = $2

Should I play now?  Definitely!!

Now another change to the game--last time, I promise.  Now the wager is still $1, but game is a ten coin flips.  If all of the flips are heads, you gain $10 trillion.  If not, you still lose the dollar.  Does it still make sense to wager?

"But this is no parallel to wagering on God," you say, "because there are many gods one could choose from."  With so much on the line, does it not make sense to find the game with the best odds (the highest probability, even if it's only 10^-100)?  But to be fair, if you find that the probability of any god existing is absolutely zero, this logic does not apply because the utlity would be zero.

Or the rational actor would simply not play the game and keep the dollar.

Edit: I suppose I could elaborate a little:

If you're going to equate a coin toss to a god (let alone the chance that a god has made an eternal playground for humans after we die... let alone the god even cares about humans... and let alone that there even is an "after we die" even if there is a god), then it's:
It's $1 every Sunday, everytime you speak up for the bet and everytime you think about the bet
You only "win" on some unknown combination of heads or tails
The prize is not specified
Person who is supposed to provide the prize has no evidence of its existence
No one has ever been shown to have been paid out

The parallel is $1 to one lifetime.  You are alive.  Therefore, each person HAS to bet.  As Pascal put it, "you are embarked". 

What would the probability of God existing need to be in order to justify wagering one lifetime to gain infinite happy lifetimes?  As decision theory would conclude, unless the probability is zero, the utlity is infinite because the value of the "prize" is infinite.  Therefore, as Pascal put it, "Our proposition has infinite force".

Many on another thread have concluded that the probability is exactly zero, so it is quite true that by not believing in God they are indeed acting consistently with decision theory.  However, anyone on that thread who used words like "possible" or "very unlikely" ascribe some probability (even if quite small) to the thing would be acting quite irrationally NOT to seek out which "wager for God" is most likely to be true and betting their life on it.

So wether you wager or not, would following a god out of fear only, or just because you want a better afterlife doing it for the wrong reasons? Do most of the people who say they "love" god actually love god or do they fear god? Or do they do it just to get into heaven?

So with that said, to say "I better be a theist just in case it may be true" may just land you in hell if it is?

Quote from: Xjeepguy on November 08, 2011, 01:05:21 PM
So wether you wager or not, would following a god out of fear only, or just because you want a better afterlife doing it for the wrong reasons? Do most of the people who say they "love" god actually love god or do they fear god? Or do they do it just to get into heaven?

So with that said, to say "I better be a theist just in case it may be true" may just land you in hell if it is?

Whether I choose to obey the speed limit for fear of the cops or out of a love for human life, am I not in alignment with the law either way?  Likewise, while it may be a "higher good" to love God for His attributes and obey Him out of love, is it not still alignment with God to obey Him out of fear?

Quote from: bandit4god on November 08, 2011, 01:47:10 PM
Whether I choose to obey the speed limit for fear of the cops or out of a love for human life, am I not in alignment with the law either way?  Likewise, while it may be a "higher good" to love God for His attributes and obey Him out of love, is it not still alignment with God to obey Him out of fear?

No.
God told me she hates grovelling toadies.
She made the world and stepped back to watch what we could do, and what happens?  Some scum bags come along and pretend to talk in her name, saying the natural is wrong, killing in her name.  Well I wouldn't like to be in the shoes of some theists when she reviews their efforts.

Quote from: bandit4god on November 08, 2011, 01:00:31 PMThe parallel is $1 to one lifetime.  You are alive.  Therefore, each person HAS to bet.  As Pascal put it, "you are embarked".

So it's not like betting and the coin toss is irrelevant because we have no choice but to wager the dollar. How convenient for your example.

But it is more than one dollar per lifetime. Everytime you take a supernatural explanation over science or admitting ignorance, you're wasting an allegorical dollar. Everytime you spend time on the assumption of a god (going to church, trying to convince other people to believe, teaching other people who already believe... etc.), you're wasting a dollar. Everytime you argue that it's rational to accept the concept of a god without reasonable evidence, you're wasting a dollar.

Everytime I don't give a fuck about whether there is or isn't a god, I save a dollar. I'm not playing the game. If you say I have no choice, then I have no choice I guess, but in that kind of choiceless world where the god removes my free will, it doesn't matter now does it?

Quote from: bandit4godWhat would the probability of God existing need to be in order to justify wagering one lifetime to gain infinite happy lifetimes?  As decision theory would conclude, unless the probability is zero, the utlity is infinite because the value of the "prize" is infinite.  Therefore, as Pascal put it, "Our proposition has infinite force".

There would need to be something in order to make the wager worth something. This is like tossing a dollar into the air and expecting to gain millions. This is not to be confused with spending a dollar on the lottery, at least there is evidence that the lottery exists and has paid out. However, as I pointed out earlier, there is no evidence that anyone wagering on a god has ever been paid out and there is no eveidence that there is even anyone who will pay. So you can toss your dollar into the wind, hide it under a special rock or burn it in sacrifice and expect to receive millions someday... I'll just hold onto mine.

Quote from: bandit4godMany on another thread have concluded that the probability is exactly zero, so it is quite true that by not believing in God they are indeed acting consistently with decision theory.  However, anyone on that thread who used words like "possible" or "very unlikely" ascribe some probability (even if quite small) to the thing would be acting quite irrationally NOT to seek out which "wager for God" is most likely to be true and betting their life on it.

Many people who are not me. Because there is no way to determine a probability of a god or gods and because I have no desire to blindly speculate on the probability, there is no utility in it for me. You and others can baselessly assume all ya'll want, but without any kind of solid grounding, it's effectively useless.

Quote from: Asmodean on November 05, 2011, 09:59:45 PM
Which of the thousands of gods should one then bet on though?

It still comes down to that, does it not?

I couldn't agree more with you Asmo. Pascal's wager is flawed from the beginning, because it assumes the only god is the Christian god, and the only afterlife is the Christian afterlife.

What Pascal should have done is repeated the wager for Zeus, Odin, Baal, Isis, Mithras, Yahweh etc etc, and ended up realising he'd be better off believing in all the gods, thus becoming a pagan. This would of course have him going straight to the Christian hell after he died for believing in all these other gods! It's a totally pointless exercise.

Another doubtful assumption with that wager is that an omniscient god would accept a conversion which he knows damn well is an insincere piece of insurance.

Quote from: OldGit on November 08, 2011, 04:02:28 PMAnother doubtful assumption with that wager is that an omniscient god would accept a conversion which he knows damn well is an insincere piece of insurance.

Also that people can just believe. I cannot believe by choice, my wanting to know the truth prevents that.

plus if the wager is merely over whether a god exists or not (rather than specifically the Christian god), there's no evidence said deity would care if we believed in it or not, so why bother with the wager in the first place?

Quote from: Too Few Lions on November 08, 2011, 03:57:25 PM

Quote from: Asmodean on November 05, 2011, 09:59:45 PM
Which of the thousands of gods should one then bet on though?

It still comes down to that, does it not?

I couldn't agree more with you Asmo. Pascal's wager is flawed from the beginning, because it assumes the only god is the Christian god, and the only afterlife is the Christian afterlife.

What Pascal should have done is repeated the wager for Zeus, Odin, Baal, Isis, Mithras, Yahweh etc etc, and ended up realising he'd be better off believing in all the gods, thus becoming a pagan. This would of course have him going straight to the Christian hell after he died for believing in all these other gods! It's a totally pointless exercise.

Pascal's Wager is valuable merely as a launching point to one aggressively seeking out an answer this very question.  If given the arguments presented for the existence of God, one determines probability is non-zero, this should rationally catalyze the most deliberative, exhaustive search in that person's life to wager on the God with the highest probability of existing.

Concerning those who throw up their hands as you've done in your above point and seek no further, Pascal shares some strong words in Pensee' 194:  "This carelessness in a matter which concerns themselves, their eternity, their all, moves me more to anger than pity; it astonishes and shocks me; it is to me monstrous."

Quote from: bandit4god on November 08, 2011, 06:46:56 PM

Quote from: Too Few Lions on November 08, 2011, 03:57:25 PM

Quote from: Asmodean on November 05, 2011, 09:59:45 PM
Which of the thousands of gods should one then bet on though?

It still comes down to that, does it not?

I couldn't agree more with you Asmo. Pascal's wager is flawed from the beginning, because it assumes the only god is the Christian god, and the only afterlife is the Christian afterlife.

What Pascal should have done is repeated the wager for Zeus, Odin, Baal, Isis, Mithras, Yahweh etc etc, and ended up realising he'd be better off believing in all the gods, thus becoming a pagan. This would of course have him going straight to the Christian hell after he died for believing in all these other gods! It's a totally pointless exercise.

Pascal's Wager is valuable merely as a launching point to one aggressively seeking out an answer this very question.  If given the arguments presented for the existence of God, one determines probability is non-zero, this should rationally catalyze the most deliberative, exhaustive search in that person's life to wager on the God with the highest probability of existing.

I did this and God still came out on "bottom". I started as a believer and, upon "aggressively seeking out answers" discovered there was no God. Of course, you, or any other Christian, would not be satisfied with this because it's not the same conclusion that you reached and thus must be wrong, but it was an honest pursuit on my part. I gave it all a "chance" and, if anything, my basis of belief was stacking in Christianity's favour.

But it didn't measure up and I couldn't force myself to believe in something just because I wanted to (which, at points, I really did).

I would like my dollar back please  ;D

Quote from: bandit4god on November 08, 2011, 06:46:56 PM
"This carelessness in a matter which concerns themselves, their eternity, their all, moves me more to anger than pity; it astonishes and shocks me; it is to me monstrous."

Perhaps Pascal was no fool, although that point is debateable, but your words here are nothing but foolishness.

For starters, you don't have to "throw up your hands and seek no firther" if you have never initiated or joined the search in the first place.

Then, you say "You have a dollar, so you have to bet"... Are you serious?! I can damned well use my dollar to buy smokes with and fuck the lottery.

c) Pascal's wager is useless even as a launch pad since the most likely gods to exist are the Hindu living gods, who actually do live, but they offer you no post-mortem rewards for worshipping them. They expect you to give them stuff, in fact.

and four, without any conclusive proof of a possibility of eternal life after death, betting on the existence of such is foolishness since what we know seems to indicate that after death, you rot and that's about it.

Quote from: bandit4god on November 08, 2011, 06:46:56 PMPascal's Wager is valuable merely as a launching point to one aggressively seeking out an answer this very question.  If given the arguments presented for the existence of God, one determines probability is non-zero, this should rationally catalyze the most deliberative, exhaustive search in that person's life to wager on the God with the highest probability of existing.

I don't see that it has any value, I've listed my problems that I found while aggressively considering Pascal's Wager, which remain unaddressed by anyone. If you have solutions to the problems I presented, then let me know, otherwise Pascal's Wager is worhtless.

Quote from: bandit4godConcerning those who throw up their hands as you've done in your above point and seek no further, Pascal shares some strong words in Pensee' 194:  "This carelessness in a matter which concerns themselves, their eternity, their all, moves me more to anger than pity; it astonishes and shocks me; it is to me monstrous."

The problem I see with this quote right here is that Too Few Lions had expressed that Pascal was being careless by only considering one god, to which you reply with this quote about Pascal getting angry at people for being careless... essentially making it appear that Pascal is scolding himself.

Quote from: Davin on November 08, 2011, 08:23:31 PM
...essentially making it appear that Pascal is scolding himself.

You think that was not the intention..?

Come to think of it, it probably wasn't...  :-\

Quote from: Davin on November 08, 2011, 08:23:31 PM
I don't see that it has any value, I've listed my problems that I found while aggressively considering Pascal's Wager, which remain unaddressed by anyone. If you have solutions to the problems I presented, then let me know, otherwise Pascal's Wager is worhtless.

Sorry, Davin, lots of you and only one me.

QuoteBut it is more than one dollar per lifetime. Everytime you take a supernatural explanation over science or admitting ignorance, you're wasting an allegorical dollar. Everytime you spend time on the assumption of a god (going to church, trying to convince other people to believe, teaching other people who already believe... etc.), you're wasting a dollar. Everytime you argue that it's rational to accept the concept of a god without reasonable evidence, you're wasting a dollar.

Replace "waste" with "wager" in the above and you're getting warmer.  Anyone is free to not wager on God, but to do so is contrary to what decision theory would dictate as rational action.  To take the dollar (or thousand dollars) in the hand vice wagering on the trillions of trillions in the bush is what you're describing above, and it's certainly your choice.  Pascal and decision theory would call it lunacy, but it remains your choice.

Quote
There would need to be something in order to make the wager worth something.

Technically, per decision theory:
- if this is an uncertainty system, there would need to be a possibility of God existing
- if this is a risk system, there would need to be a non-zero probability of God existing

The camp who claims that probability doesn't apply here is making the claim that the question of God existing or not existing is an uncertainty system, and therefore would have to conclude beyond doubt that there is no possibility of God existing.  To allow even the slightest possibility gives "wagering for God" an infinite utility value, giving infinite force to the argument that it is rational to "wager for God".

Quote

Quote from: bandit4godConcerning those who throw up their hands as you've done in your above point and seek no further, Pascal shares some strong words in Pensee' 194:  "This carelessness in a matter which concerns themselves, their eternity, their all, moves me more to anger than pity; it astonishes and shocks me; it is to me monstrous."

The problem I see with this quote right here is that Too Few Lions had expressed that Pascal was being careless by only considering one god, to which you reply with this quote about Pascal getting angry at people for being careless... essentially making it appear that Pascal is scolding himself.

Earlier in this pensee, and in other pensees, it's clear that the "carelessness" he refers to is to terminate one's reflection of the wager at the many gods question.  His "anger" is because such people wouldn't instead launch an all-in campaign to sort out which wager with infinite utility has the highest probability of being true.

Quote from: bandit4god on November 08, 2011, 09:47:54 PM

Quote from: Davin on November 08, 2011, 08:23:31 PM
I don't see that it has any value, I've listed my problems that I found while aggressively considering Pascal's Wager, which remain unaddressed by anyone. If you have solutions to the problems I presented, then let me know, otherwise Pascal's Wager is worhtless.

Sorry, Davin, lots of you and only one me.

Only one of me. Don't worry, my statement wasn't meant as a prodding, it was just a statement.

Quote from: bandit4god

QuoteBut it is more than one dollar per lifetime. Everytime you take a supernatural explanation over science or admitting ignorance, you're wasting an allegorical dollar. Everytime you spend time on the assumption of a god (going to church, trying to convince other people to believe, teaching other people who already believe... etc.), you're wasting a dollar. Everytime you argue that it's rational to accept the concept of a god without reasonable evidence, you're wasting a dollar.

Replace "waste" with "wager" in the above and you're getting warmer.

Oh really? Can you demonstrate that the proverbial dollars are not going to waste? If not, then your subjective statement is just as good as mine.

Quote from: bandit4godAnyone is free to not wager on God, but to do so is contrary to what decision theory would dictate as rational action.  To take the dollar (or thousand dollars) in the hand vice wagering on the trillions of trillions in the bush is what you're describing above, and it's certainly your choice.  Pascal and decision theory would call it lunacy, but it remains your choice.

I do not care whether someone who has demonstrated very limited and inconsistent thinking calls my thinking "lunacy" nor do I think that decision theory has the ability or anything to say about my thinking. I do not see what the point is in bringing up what Pascal or a theory think, is this some kind of appeal to authority inside a thinly veiled ad hominem? I sincerely hope this is not the case, because I prefer you discussing things without resorting to fallacies.

Quote from: bandit4god

Quote
There would need to be something in order to make the wager worth something.

Technically, per decision theory:
- if this is an uncertainty system, there would need to be a possibility of God existing
- if this is a risk system, there would need to be a non-zero probability of God existing

The camp who claims that probability doesn't apply here is making the claim that the question of God existing or not existing is an uncertainty system, and therefore would have to conclude beyond doubt that there is no possibility of God existing.  To allow even the slightest possibility gives "wagering for God" an infinite utility value, giving infinite force to the argument that it is rational to "wager for God".

There is no way to determine if there is a probability and no way to determine what that probability is even if one could determine that there was a probability, so it's useless.

Quote from: bandit4god

Quote

Quote from: bandit4godConcerning those who throw up their hands as you've done in your above point and seek no further, Pascal shares some strong words in Pensee' 194:  "This carelessness in a matter which concerns themselves, their eternity, their all, moves me more to anger than pity; it astonishes and shocks me; it is to me monstrous."

The problem I see with this quote right here is that Too Few Lions had expressed that Pascal was being careless by only considering one god, to which you reply with this quote about Pascal getting angry at people for being careless... essentially making it appear that Pascal is scolding himself.

Earlier in this pensee, and in other pensees, it's clear that the "carelessness" he refers to is to terminate one's reflection of the wager at the many gods question.  His "anger" is because such people wouldn't instead launch an all-in campaign to sort out which wager with infinite utility has the highest probability of being true.

Then why did you cite that quote in response to a criticism of Pascal not considering enough possibilities? After all, part of decision theory is to consider all possibilities. You're not clearing anything up here.

Quote from: Davin on November 08, 2011, 10:33:25 PM

Quote from: bandit4god
Technically, per decision theory:
- if this is an uncertainty system, there would need to be a possibility of God existing
- if this is a risk system, there would need to be a non-zero probability of God existing

The camp who claims that probability doesn't apply here is making the claim that the question of God existing or not existing is an uncertainty system, and therefore would have to conclude beyond doubt that there is no possibility of God existing.  To allow even the slightest possibility gives "wagering for God" an infinite utility value, giving infinite force to the argument that it is rational to "wager for God".

There is no way to determine if there is a probability and no way to determine what that probability is even if one could determine that there was a probability, so it's useless.

Read the stuff that comes after "The Camp...".  This is what you're describing--from your perspective, which is fine, it's not a risk system but an uncertainty system.  This is not pulled from my can.  From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

Quote
In any decision problem, the way the world is, and what an agent does, together determine an outcome for the agent. We may assign utilities to such outcomes, numbers that represent the degree to which the agent values them. It is typical to present these numbers in a decision matrix, with the columns corresponding to the various relevant states of the world, and the rows corresponding to the various possible actions that the agent can perform.

In decisions under uncertainty, nothing more is given — in particular, the agent does not assign subjective probabilities to the states of the world. Still, sometimes rationality dictates a unique decision nonetheless. Consider, for example, a case that will be particularly relevant here. Suppose that you have two possible actions, A1 and A2, and the worst outcome associated with A1 is at least as good as the best outcome associated with A2; suppose also that in at least one state of the world, A1's outcome is strictly better than A2's. Let us say in that case that A1 superdominates A2. Then rationality surely requires you to perform A1.

In decisions under risk, the agent assigns subjective probabilities to the various states of the world. Assume that the states of the world are independent of what the agent does. A figure of merit called the expected utility, or the expectation of a given action can be calculated by a simple formula: for each state, multiply the utility that the action produces in that state by the state's probability; then, add these numbers. According to decision theory, rationality requires you to perform the action of maximum expected utility (if there is one).

- - -

Quote from: Davin on November 08, 2011, 10:33:25 PM

Quote from: bandit4god
Earlier in this pensee, and in other pensees, it's clear that the "carelessness" he refers to is to terminate one's reflection of the wager at the many gods question.  His "anger" is because such people wouldn't instead launch an all-in campaign to sort out which wager with infinite utility has the highest probability of being true.

Then why did you cite that quote in response to a criticism of Pascal not considering enough possibilities? After all, part of decision theory is to consider all possibilities. You're not clearing anything up here.

The criticism (as I understood it) was that the wager does not address the potential existence of many gods, all of which promise infinite utility to the wagerer.  My response was that Pascal's intent was not that the reader should zip straight from the wager to Christianity, but that they be persuaded to ardently seek out which of the superdominant wagers (those yielding infinite utility) has the highest strongest case for being true.

Rather than do this, almost all respondents to this thread (with the notable and refreshing exception of DeterminedJuliet) have neglected to undertake such a study.

I can imagine advanced aliens who may share technological immortality, but avoid Earth due to the infectious religious disease.  Extremely fanciful but as likely as any theist story I've heard.  The idea that religion could prevent us attaining our own technological immortality isn't fanciful at all.

^ That would make a wonderful SF novel.

Quote from: bandit4god on November 09, 2011, 12:28:42 AM

Quote from: Davin on November 08, 2011, 10:33:25 PM

Quote from: bandit4god
Earlier in this pensee, and in other pensees, it's clear that the "carelessness" he refers to is to terminate one's reflection of the wager at the many gods question.  His "anger" is because such people wouldn't instead launch an all-in campaign to sort out which wager with infinite utility has the highest probability of being true.

Then why did you cite that quote in response to a criticism of Pascal not considering enough possibilities? After all, part of decision theory is to consider all possibilities. You're not clearing anything up here.

The criticism (as I understood it) was that the wager does not address the potential existence of many gods, all of which promise infinite utility to the wagerer.  My response was that Pascal's intent was not that the reader should zip straight from the wager to Christianity, but that they be persuaded to ardently seek out which of the superdominant wagers (those yielding infinite utility) has the highest strongest case for being true.

Rather than do this, almost all respondents to this thread (with the notable and refreshing exception of DeterminedJuliet) have neglected to undertake such a study.

I think Pascal's wager did refer specifically to the Christian god, for some reason (maybe his lack of knowledge / learning, the bias of his age) he assumed that Christianity was the only true and divinely revealed religion, and all others were false religions. I don't think he ever provides any evidence to back up this assumption, and I don't really see how he could (as there isn't any).

It seems to me that the most likely deity to exist would be a bare theistic entity, not the Christian god, and we have no evidence that this god would give a toss wether or not we believed in him, or that there's any afterlife associated to said deity. Therefore the wager's a waste of time, as there's no evidence we have anything to gain or lose, and it's certainly not something we should be devoting a largrge amount of our lives to.

Quote from: bandit4god on November 08, 2011, 06:46:56 PM
Concerning those who throw up their hands as you've done in your above point and seek no further, Pascal shares some strong words in Pensee' 194:  "This carelessness in a matter which concerns themselves, their eternity, their all, moves me more to anger than pity; it astonishes and shocks me; it is to me monstrous."

This comments displays the flaw in Pascal's thinking. Where's the evidence that believing in a god or not is 'a matter which concerns themselves, their eternity, their all'. Only a crazed religious zealot could believe such a thing.

Quote from: bandit4god on November 09, 2011, 12:28:42 AM

Quote from: Davin on November 08, 2011, 10:33:25 PM

Quote from: bandit4god
Technically, per decision theory:
- if this is an uncertainty system, there would need to be a possibility of God existing
- if this is a risk system, there would need to be a non-zero probability of God existing

The camp who claims that probability doesn't apply here is making the claim that the question of God existing or not existing is an uncertainty system, and therefore would have to conclude beyond doubt that there is no possibility of God existing.  To allow even the slightest possibility gives "wagering for God" an infinite utility value, giving infinite force to the argument that it is rational to "wager for God".

There is no way to determine if there is a probability and no way to determine what that probability is even if one could determine that there was a probability, so it's useless.

Read the stuff that comes after "The Camp...".

I did read it, because it did not address anything I said, I tried to guess what it meant in context of the things I said. You posted it in response my criticism on the lack of something to determine if the wager is even worth something, so I figured I'd restate what I said in clearer terms. Because apparently my assumptions are wrong, please explain how what you said addresses my point that there is nothing to show that the wager is worth something.

Quote from: bandit4godThis is what you're describing--from your perspective, which is fine, it's not a risk system but an uncertainty system.  This is not pulled from my can.  From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

My problem is not the lack of understanding the concepts, it's that the concepts are useless when applying to something that nothing can be determined about. So please let us move on to the fun bits of discussion.

Please refrain from your condescending tone (as seen in the "Read the stuff that comes after "The Camp..."." and the citing of something I have a good understanding of and have not demonstrated otherwise), and let's just discuss things in a civil manner. This is the second time I'm asking you to remain civil. I've been doing my best to refrain from mimicking your behavior, because one of my faults is that I reciprocate the tone, techniques and rhetorical devices used against me in discussions (aside from using fallacies, being emotional and using threats of violence). These forums have rules that I respect, so if you continue this behavior, I will merely stop discussing things with you. I'm actually quite pleased at how far I've come since starting on these forums.

Quote from: bandit4godThe criticism (as I understood it) was that the wager does not address the potential existence of many gods, all of which promise infinite utility to the wagerer.  My response was that Pascal's intent was not that the reader should zip straight from the wager to Christianity, but that they be persuaded to ardently seek out which of the superdominant wagers (those yielding infinite utility) has the highest strongest case for being true.

There is at least one kind of god assumed by Pascal and one kind that is not assumed. The assumption (or hidden premise) in Pascal's Wager is that the god cares whether someone believes in it or not and will reward those that do. An equally viable "possibility" is a god that does not want people to believe in it and will punish (for all eternity), anyone who believes that there is a god. So again, Pascal appeared to be scolding himself in context of his limited list and being angered at his own carelessness due to your citations.

The second problem is that there is no evidence to be used to determine which of the concepts of a god is any more true than another, so even if one were to accept that the wager has any merit and seek out the "one true god", they're still left with placing their bet on the roulette of infinite possibilities where the wrong bet "could" result in many other gods sending them to eternal suffering.

Quote from: bandit4godRather than do this, almost all respondents to this thread (with the notable and refreshing exception of DeterminedJuliet) have neglected to undertake such a study.

You assumed people had not just because they are not now doing it? Don't assume because people are not playing your little game this time that they had not taken such a study. You're very far from being the first person to present me with Pascal's wager. I've personally and honestly played this Pascal's Wager game at least a dozen times, as well as addressing it a few hundred times. I've found that it's an irrational means to determine whether one should believe in a god or not.

Quote from: BanditRather than do this, almost all respondents to this thread (with the notable and refreshing exception of DeterminedJuliet) have neglected to undertake such a study.

I've been over it, too - I daresay we all have - and I long ago decided it was not worth further consideration.  You do sound a bit condescending, y'know.

Quote from: DavinI've found that it's an irrational means to determine whether one should believe in a god or not.

Yes, and a dishonest, opportunist trick to boot.

Quote from: OldGit on November 09, 2011, 04:27:48 PM

Quote from: DavinI've found that it's an irrational means to determine whether one should believe in a god or not.

Yes, and a dishonest, opportunist trick to boot.

I agree, I find it at least intellectually dishonest if not just plain old dishonest.

Quote from: Too Few Lions on November 09, 2011, 12:45:40 PM
I think Pascal's wager did refer specifically to the Christian god,

Yes it did...in fact there would be no basis in stating the wager unless he were working off of a religious viewpoint that belief in god offers rewards in the afterlife; Christianity is one of the few religions which bases reward solely off of belief (most others have action based rewards).

To me it is more like a lottery game than a wager. With a wager you have far better chances. In this lottery game, you don't know what the rules are, you don't know whether you are betting on the "right horse" and there is no proof that any price has ever been awarded.