Archive for Monday, January 15, 2007
Moral logic
January 15, 2007
Advertisement
To the editor:
In a recent letter, Bruce Springsteen said that in morality people make "two stupid mistakes." First, that of "an absolute cosmic force" (God). Second, thinking morality is "purely personal preference." His alternative is his personal preference of social constructs.
Where is the logical position between robust theism and utter nihilism? Not all who have held those views are stupid. Rather than a social construct being self-evident, social constructs for morality turn out to be a majority view of self-relativists. Taking his position to its logical end, there is nothing that Hitler did that was wrong. Societal standards do not lead us to morality, but legal immorality. This is so clear in America's fall today.
The only position that can answer the cry of the human heart and mind is that of theism. No other position tells us what morality is and provides an oughtness to them. Individual and societal relativism are the same thing and cannot provide any real standard or oughtness for morality. This is why the dogma of evolution will never satisfy the human soul. In terms of meaning and morality, it is logical nihilism.
All that reason can design against design will never convince a thinking human being against design. If our rationality had not been designed, then all we think and do is irrational. Morality cannot be designed by a nondesigned humanity. Professor Krishtalka teaches evolution and the morality of environmentalism at the same time. What teaches him what is immoral? It shows that God created him.
Richard Smith,
Lawrence
15 January 2007
at 7:05 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
By your logic, if Hitler had claimed that God told him to do what he did, then he would have been just as justified as Bush saying that God told him to invade Iraq.
15 January 2007
at 8:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Barclay (Anonymous) says…
Richard, you are right. Well done. No one enjoys having their inconsistencies pointed out.
15 January 2007
at 12:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
gr (Anonymous) says…
“By your logic, if Hitler had claimed that God told him to do what he did, then he would have been just as justified as Bush saying that God told him to invade Iraq.”
Many people make the claim that God told them to. What is your point in comparing Hitler to Bush? You seem to be saying one is right and the other is wrong.
15 January 2007
at 2:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
budwhysir (Anonymous) says…
Ah yes my two favorite topics all in one letter.
First off lets start with morality:
Moraly speaking on the politics of morality, I can say that research has lead me to believe that the morals and the morality of morals have become somewhat of a logical matter, this brings my next point.
logic:
The most misplaced phenominon of the modern moral person. Logic is placed in the brain segment and is mostly in the off position during weekdays. However, when you combine logic with morals you get moral logic.
15 January 2007
at 4:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
anxiousatheist (Clint Gentry) says…
“the cry of the human heart”? Give me a break, this is irrational thought at it's finest. “If our rationality hadn't been designed, then all we think and do is irrational” What are you talking about? Since we are using O'reilly's terms. you “traditionalists” are on a losing side that has never won or will win by virtue of it's definition. “Tradition is the illusion of permanence.” Your arguments have been stated for centuries, yet people are still turning away from religion, (and rightly so), because it doesn't make sense! You can fool yourselves with all the rhetoric you want, but the truth stands on it's own, faith is the absence of truth…
15 January 2007
at 4:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
“Many people make the claim that God told them to. What is your point in comparing Hitler to Bush? You seem to be saying one is right and the other is wrong.”
No, just saying that by the logic of this letter, Hitler's only mistake was not justifying the morality of his actions as being ordained by God.
Bush claims that God told him to do it, and for this letter writer, that seems to be enough justification for whatever he might do.
15 January 2007
at 5:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
gr (Anonymous) says…
“No, just saying that by the logic of this letter, Hitler's only mistake was not justifying the morality of his actions as being ordained by God.”
I guess you are reading into the letter than I am. I see in the letter, “This is so clear in America's fall today”, which doesn't seem to me being approval of Bush invoking God.
15 January 2007
at 6:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
From the letter:
“The only position that can answer the cry of the human heart and mind is that of theism. No other position tells us what morality is and provides an oughtness to them.”
Seems to be exactly the rationale Bush uses when he tells us God told him to do it (whatever that is at any given moment.)
15 January 2007
at 7:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
anxiousatheist (Clint Gentry) says…
When a person “talks to God” it is poetic, when someone says that “God talked to me”, it's psychotic. Morality is an exercise, a constant judgment of forces by the human mind. It is not merely a list of things to do, or direct adherence to a supposed “leader”, that is the way you control children and the simple minded…
15 January 2007
at 7:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
75x55 (Anonymous) says…
So, when is morality valid in the absence of an absolute moral authority? Absence of an absolute moral authority reduces 'morality' to the fevered imaginings of human opinion.
Given the record of human history, secular 'morality' isn't worth a pinch of dried monkey poo.
15 January 2007
at 7:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jonas (Anonymous) says…
Under the social construct of morality, what Hitler, and others, did led to the assumedly unwilling deaths of 50,000,000 people, which makes it wrong.
The only problem with theism, Richard, if you haven't figured it out, is that all of those edicts on morality and behavior were written by people, not god, to govern their societies, which were thousands of years ago.
15 January 2007
at 7:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
anxiousatheist (Clint Gentry) says…
75x55, I disagree, an example…I shouldn't kill people because I don't want to put ones family or loved ones in distress. Now, tell me why I need an ancient text to back me up? I think that this itself is a good enough reason to not kill someone. My rational is a much more sound than saying a book told me so. And again to all you “traditionalists”, there is no magic “moral authority”, there is only you deciding how you should act.
15 January 2007
at 9:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
75x55 (Anonymous) says…
That's just your opinion, anxious. And that's all it is - an opinion.
15 January 2007
at 9:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
budwhysir (Anonymous) says…
This road has turned to gravel and now the dust is flying. I am having trouble seeing in front of me and determining where to turn.
Please everyone, turn on your headlights and only use your low beams. If you have fog lights use them. Thanks
15 January 2007
at 10:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
anxiousatheist (Clint Gentry) says…
75x55, if your answer consists simply of “that's your opinion”, then you've succumb to the worst type of thought, nihilism. Plugging your ears and flippantly dismissing an argument as “opinion”. O'Reilly tries to pass it off as rational argument, (hint, it isn't), but you've added it your arsenal and pull it out like a Cross when the vampires come knocking. But it doesn't kill the vampires, it tires them out…
15 January 2007
at 11:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jonas (Anonymous) says…
“Posted by 75x55 (anonymous) on January 15, 2007 at 7:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Given the record of human history, secular 'morality' isn't worth a pinch of dried monkey poo.”
So, is it your opinion, then, that theistic 'morality' has fared better? According to human history, there are some problems there, as well.
16 January 2007
at 12:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
OK, we'll let God tell us how to live. But for this decade, it'll be my God. Your God can tell us how to live next decade.
That's fair and sensible, don't you think?
16 January 2007
at 1:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
boldaq (Anonymous) says…
Sec Prog Church
Bruce 'All Mighty' Springsteen, If HE says it, THEY believe it.
His 12 disciples - Oprah, Clooney, Penn, Baldwin, Robbins and The View crew with Rosie counting as four.
“All morality comes from entertainers”, says Dem prez black hope contender, Ba-rock Orama
Hollywood = Left Wing Whacko Heaven
“That's as high as you can go, baby” - Well known Bush-haters, The Chicksie Dicks
16 January 2007
at 6:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
anxiousatheist (Clint Gentry) says…
Someone's angry the Dixie Chicks were right about George Bush…
16 January 2007
at 6:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jonas (Anonymous) says…
Yeah, Boldaq, it's good that we have such a paragon of moral action and respect such as yourself to tell us how respectful adults should act. I think I'm going to go out and make fun of fat people and people who have different ideologies than me today.
16 January 2007
at 9:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
75x55 (Anonymous) says…
“So, is it your opinion, then, that theistic 'morality' has fared better? According to human history, there are some problems there, as well.”
Has ANY 'morality' fared well, when measured against human society? I think even you would agree to a 'no' answer to that one.
If the only measure of any action's worth are the actual results, then any 'morality' is a complete failure, as the demonstrated human capability to be moral is a complete impossibility.
The confusion for most people is their perception of 'morality' in terms of results, rather than as a standard.
16 January 2007
at 9:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
Huh?
16 January 2007
at 10:04 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
75x55 (Anonymous) says…
Why doesn't that surprise me…
16 January 2007
at 10:07 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
I guess if results don't matter, then the choice of a moral code really doesn't either.
16 January 2007
at 12:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
smith (Anonymous) says…
75x55, I disagree, an example…I shouldn't kill people because I don't want to put ones family or loved ones in distress. Now, tell me why I need an ancient text to back me up? anxiousatheist
–––––––––––––––––––––––-
But what would be moral about not putting families or loved ones in distress? Perhaps by killing some individuals relieve some stress on the families and loved ones. Or perhaps in the future it would be less stressful for them. Your position provides no real reason not to kill anyone. I would hope that no ancient text would back you up on this one. But if you are referring to the Bible, since it is God's Word it is God that backs up His own words.
=======================================
I think that this itself is a good enough reason to not kill someone. My rational is a much more sound than saying a book told me so. And again to all you “traditionalists”, there is no magic “moral authority”, there is only you deciding how you should act. Anxiousatheist
––––––––––––––––––––––—
Once examined, however, it is not a good reason at all and may be a good reason to kill people. I agree that there is no magic moral authority, but rather that God Himself as revealed in the Bible is the moral authority whether you or anyone else hates that fact or not. If He is not the moral authority, then there is no real moral authority. If morality is simply each person deciding how s/he acts, then whatever a person decides to do is moral. Following your logic, a person that decides to murder is actually commiting a moral action. I see why you are an anxious atheist.
16 January 2007
at 1:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
75x55 (Anonymous) says…
“If He is not the moral authority, then there is no real moral authority. If morality is simply each person deciding how s/he acts, then whatever a person decides to do is moral.”
Bingo.
Hence, the intent of secular morality is primarily to deny God. However, in doing that, proponents of secular morality only reveal the inherent weakness of their position - that being they have no more authority than anyone else to determine a proper 'morality'. It all becomes a circular wasted exercise in relativism.
Without an absolute authority, morality is only a construct of mere human opinions.
16 January 2007
at 1:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
smith (Anonymous) says…
“the cry of the human heart”? Give me a break, this is irrational thought at it's finest. anxiousatheist
–––––––––––––––––––––––—
Well, at least it is at its finest. However, saying something is far different than proving it. The fact that there is the cry of the heart in all human beings about morality is far more than an irrational thought, it is rationality dealing with reality. Until you can demonstrate why the human heart desires and wants morality, you will continue to be anxious about your atheism which is really irrationality at its worst.
=====================================
“If our rationality hadn't been designed, then all we think and do is irrational” What are you talking about?
anxiousatheist
––––––––––––––––––––––––
If you are nothing but a blob or collection of atoms that came together by irrational forces, then all that you do and think is a result of irrational forces. Can you try to tell me how that all that happens by irrational forces can be rational? It is rather hard (for anyone) to explain how rational beings can be produces by irrational matter.
========================================
Since we are using O'reilly's terms. you “traditionalists” are on a losing side that has never won or will win by virtue of it's definition. “Tradition is the illusion of permanence.” anxiousatheist
––––––––––––––––––––––––
I didn't mean to use “O'reilly's terms.” Atheism is what is an illusion, though admittedly it is not a permanent one. While tradition will never win, God has won and it will be demonstrated all through history and at the last day. You will figure it out some day and quit trying to convince yourself that you don't believe in God.
=======================================
16 January 2007
at 1:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
smith (Anonymous) says…
Your arguments have been stated for centuries, yet people are still turning away from religion, (and rightly so), because it doesn't make sense!
–––––––––––––––––––––––—
Sorry, my arguments have not been stated for centuries since I am not that old. The fact that something does not make sense to you is different than the fact of its making sense or not. The fact that people are turning away from religion demonstrates that truth of Christianity. It teaches that all men hate God apart from coming to Him through Jesus Christ. When people turn away from God, they are demonstrating its truthfulness. The fact that you try to deny the being of God does not demonstrate anything about God, it just demonstrates that you will not bow to Him and so try to deny Him out of existence so that you can sleep at night.
=======================================
You can fool yourselves with all the rhetoric you want, but the truth stands on it's own, faith is the absence of truth… a very anxiousatheist
––––––––––––––––––––––-
How very contrary to the truth. I am not fooled with your rhetoric and down deep you are not either. I don't believe in atheists in reality, they are just people that don't want to believe in the God they hate. Faith is a deep conviction in real reality which is truth. Atheism is the denial of real reality from an anxiousness to deny the reality of God.
16 January 2007
at 1:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
smith (Anonymous) says…
Under the social construct of morality, what Hitler, and others, did led to the assumedly unwilling deaths of 50,000,000 people, which makes it wrong. jonas
–––––––––––––––––––––––—
You have not shown how the deaths of any person or any number of people would be wrong. The fact that it happened does not mean that it is wrong. Murder is not wrong unless you can demonstrate why it is wrong.
========================================
The only problem with theism, Richard, if you haven't figured it out, is that all of those edicts on morality and behavior were written by people, not god, to govern their societies, which were thousands of years ago.
jonas
–––––––––––––––––––––––-
Sorry, but you can't prove that either. Remember, those who strictly follow empirical thinking must apply it across the board in their thinking. If science cannot demonstrate the existence or non-existence of God, then it also cannot demonstrate that the Word of God is not the Word of God. I am sorry that you seem to think that the Bible is nothing more than moral edicts rather than what it is which is the revelation of the glory of God and how He saves sinners to the glory of His name.
16 January 2007
at 1:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
werekoala (Anonymous) says…
smith:
Your contention that only theology can provide morality, and hence condemnation for murder, is easliy refuted:
If I tell you that I'm missing my watch, and a Jew, a Muslim, a Christian and an Atheist all had an equal opportunity to steal it - would knowing their religion be a clue in determining who stole it? Of course not - you'd want to know the background, the financial status, and the reputations of these people to get an idea who took it. From this evidence, we can conclude that the deity a person worships (or fails to worship) has little to no effect on their practical morality.
Plus, I find Kant's Catagorical Imperative to be just fine in regards to a non-dogmatic approach to practical morality that most people can agree with. Look it up, you might learn something.
===================================
“If science cannot demonstrate the existence or non-existence of invisible pink unicorns, then it also cannot demonstrate that what those pink unicorns telepathically is not the Word of the pink unicorns.”
This sentance is just as semanticly true as yours. It only sounds silly because you weren't brought up to revere pink unicorns. The take-home lesson is just because there is no evidence for or against a claim is no reason to blindly believe it. In fact, it's usually a good idea to insist on sizeable amounts of evidence before believing in something.
16 January 2007
at 2:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
craigers (Anonymous) says…
werekoala, can you tell me a case in which murder is okay? And don't confuse murder with killing in self-defense or something else of that sort. If morals were determined by us making our own decisions then we can't tell anybody that murder is wrong since for them it might not be. Our justice system is set-up believing that there are moral absolutes that should govern society. Otherwise the judge wouldn't be able to judge or sentence a person for killing another or committing another crime, just as long as they said nothing was wrong with it. Who are we to judge them? The notion of no moral absolute and morals being decided by each person unravels into a chaotic society.
16 January 2007
at 2:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
“but rather that God Himself as revealed in the Bible is the moral authority whether you or anyone else hates that fact or not.”
It's not fact— it's faith. I don't hate your faith— I just don't want to be required to live by your faith-based moral code just because you insist that I do so, especially when it's just plain devoid of logic, as many christian precepts often are.
16 January 2007
at 2:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Kodiac (Anonymous) says…
“If He is not the moral authority, then there is no real moral authority. If morality is simply each person deciding how s/he acts, then whatever a person decides to do is moral.” — Smith
This is a false dichotomy that cannot be supported. You are making 2 assumptions here. One is that there is an absolute moral code and two that God is responsible for that absolute moral code. These assumptions are groundless and have no more logic than saying humans created morality. The reasons cited by Smith are no more valid than the reasons cited by secular humanists. As far as I am concerned the christian theist and secular humansits are on equal footing when it comes to morality. In fact I would say that the secular humanist is on stronger moral grounds than the theist.
Think about this. What if God does not exist. Then the theist that are supposedly following a moral code based on some non-existent God could be perpertrating immoral acts on humankind. Consider the story of Abraham who was willing to kill his own son to demonstrate his love for God. A theist would consider Abraham to be moral because he is following God's command. A secular humanist would consider such an act against humanity to be immoral.
A christian theist might claim their motive for being moral should be because they love God, they recognize him as their creator, they want to do what is right for its own sake, and they desire their own welfare in this life and the life to come. But a secular humanist can make a similar declaration of equal merit. For example, a secular humanist could claim their motive for being moral should be because they love humankind, they recognize their debt to society, they want to do what is good for its own sake, and they desire their own welfare in this life as well as the welfare of generations to come. These statements provide equally good reasons for being moral, because they appeal to exactly the same values, and a Christian has no better reason to commit to these values than a secular humanist.
I also think that Christian theism idea of morality is selfish in of itself. Self-interest is what drives the theist. He or she wants to enjoy an afterlife in heaven so fear of being in hell drives them to be good (Think Santa Claus here). However someone who professes to be a secular humanist and follows a moral code because of their love for humankind is a much stronger person from a morality standpoint. They choose to be moral for the betterment of humankind.
16 January 2007
at 2:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
werekoala (Anonymous) says…
craigers -
Those are the kind of ridiculous extremes that you can come to believe in when all you listen to is demagauges. You do realize they are laughing all the way to the bank, right?
No one has ever proposed that we should let other people do anything they want to. I don't think that people should be allowed to kill, cheat each other, break contracts, steal, or any of the other crimes. But I don't think these are Bad Things just because the Man in the Sky told me so, I think they are Bad Things because permitting them interefers with the smooth functioning of society and causes innocents to suffer.
Some more gems:
“If morals were determined by us making our own decisions then we can't tell anybody that murder is wrong since for them it might not be.”
—Implying that the only reason YOU aren't a serial killer is because God told you not to be. I'd feel much, much safer if you weren't a serial killer because YOU don't want to be, regardless of whether or not there is a God.
+++++++
“Our justice system is set-up believing that there are moral absolutes that should govern society.”
—Um, no, it doesn't tell you to say five Hail Marys for speeding. It is set up believing that certain acts are dangerous to allow, and require deterrence/punishment/rehabillitation.
+++++++
“The notion of no moral absolute and morals being decided by each person unravels into a chaotic society.”
—GOOD! I like people who are different from me, who see the world differently from me. And unlike you I DON'T want to banish people with different religions from myself. I just want to make sure that I and others are protected from harm.
But it sounds like you'd be happier living in a theocracy - might I suggest Iran, Vatican City, or Saudi Arabia?
16 January 2007
at 3:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
75x55 (Anonymous) says…
“Self-interest is what drives the theist. ” - Kodiac
Excellent!
However, I believe you limit your thesis - self-interest (aka, selfishness) is what drives all humans. It is not an inherently BAD thing.
werek's Kant - yes, the ol' 'lets all pretend we're God' thing. Whatever.
16 January 2007
at 3:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jonas (Anonymous) says…
75x55: Actually, yes, I would agree with that. So, err, what are we talking about, then? If there is no absolute source, morality fails. If there is an absolute source, morality fails. So why do we care so much? How about we just admit that we're making it all up.
Have we had this exact conversation before? I'm having strange Deja Vu to the Reader's Reaction Forum.
16 January 2007
at 3:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
werekoala (Anonymous) says…
75x55:
Eh? The catagorical imperative, basically, is when faced with a moral dilemma, imagine how the world would be if everyone made the same choice when faced with that dilemma. Then make the choice for yourself that leads to the best possible world when everyone does it.
It implies a very personal responsibility for the way the world is - every choice we make is, essentially, a vote on what type of world we'd like to live in. Maybe it's just the Golden Rule writ large, but it's a great way to disassociate yourself from the particulars of your own temptations and examine it from a more global perspective.
I just don't see how that's playing God any more than genetic engineering, or flying Congress and the President back from vacation to interfere with a husband's wishes toward his wife (a pity they couldn't show half the initiative to any of the other problems facing our country).
In summary: Eh?
16 January 2007
at 3:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jonas (Anonymous) says…
You can feel sorry for me if you want to Smith, but I wouldn't waste your time on me. I certainly don't feel sorry for what I percieve to be your incorrect position regarding the Bible. I think the higher order/power's position is much better revealed in the voices and actions of people that I care about, the people I interact with, and how we fluctuate together than in any printed book.
The proof, by the way, is simple. As the gospels were not written even by Jesus, but in scholars and disciples with names and histories, it is obvious that they were written by men, even if Jesus was the direct son of God himself, he is only paraphrased or distantly quoted in the Bible. And even if the Torah was dictated by God, it was still written down by man, passed down by man, copied by man, translated by man, interpreted by man, and revised by man. Nothing in the Bible suggests that God would make sure that his word remained consistent through the ages, and there are many things within that suggest that God, through his very nature, would do nothing at all to insure accuracy of translation. Save, perhaps, destroying a few cities with fire after they over-interpreted his word.
At any rate, I'm not even looking for proof. My position does not requre proof, which is why I have taken it. My position is that nobody is certain in any of this, we are all entitled to our own opinion of what morality is and where it comes from, and that, thus, morality is a useful tool for personal preference and in choosing your companions and environment, but it is utterly wrong to take one version and enshrine it as something that everybody has to follow, or to even expect it to be the standard by which other people live and think if, frankly, they don't want to.
Do you think that is defended logically enough? Feel free to dispute.
16 January 2007
at 3:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Calliope877 (Anonymous) says…
*slams head repeatedly into keyboard*
dksajfkasjfiewjreko4538q388rfiawe
*passes out*
16 January 2007
at 3:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
anxiousatheist (Clint Gentry) says…
That is the best point Kodiac…Theists are “moral” only under the supposition that they will be rewarded for it. It that case it isn't altruistic, it's selfish. While the secularists are “moral” because being “moral” is itself the prize, in this case the secularist is acting out of altruistic thought, and proceeds into altruistic actions. Altruistic actions are actually impossible to do if you're a theist. Altruism is the most obvious case of freedom, or of “being free” so to speak. So as a theist (not being altruistic) you're not actually free, as you've given all cause for your actions over to an imaginary being, wow imagine that!
16 January 2007
at 4:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
craigers (Anonymous) says…
I guess discussion without insult is out the window with you huh? And no you don't have to call me a name, but your overtone is really repulsing.
16 January 2007
at 4:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
anxiousatheist (Clint Gentry) says…
The emotional tone of my writing has little to do with it's validity. Please, look at my statements, and tell me what statement, (besides the conclusion that theists don't understand freedom), seems incorrect. If you can't find a problem with the premises, you can't simply discount the conclusion because it “repulses” you. Maybe it's your realization of the inanity of theist “thought” that “repulses” you?
16 January 2007
at 4:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
smith (Anonymous) says…
Your contention that only theology can provide morality, and hence condemnation for murder, is easliy refuted:
werekoala
–––––––––––––––––––––—
From reading below, it is not easily refutable or you would have done so. My contention, however, is that without God there is no moral standard. So far no one in history (from what I can gather) has been able to refute that.
========================================
If I tell you that I'm missing my watch, and a Jew, a Muslim, a Christian and an Atheist all had an equal opportunity to steal it - would knowing their religion be a clue in determining who stole it? Of course not - you'd want to know the background, the financial status, and the reputations of these people to get an idea who took it. From this evidence, we can conclude that the deity a person worships (or fails to worship) has little to no effect on their practical morality. werekoala
–––––––––––––––––––––––—
If you think that this refutes the Christian position, then I would suggest that you have yet to understand the position at all. Your position provides no evidence for why stealing the watch is wrong. Your position provides no moral “oughtness” of why anyone should not steal. The Christian position does. The very fact that you think it is wrong to steal shows that you have been created by God.
=======================================
Plus, I find Kant's Catagorical Imperative to be just fine in regards to a non-dogmatic approach to practical morality that most people can agree with. Look it up, you might learn something. werekoala
===================================
Kant actually gave about five versions to his Categorigal Imperative. Which version are you talking about? By the way, a lot of people agree (even philosophers) that Kant's Categorical Imperative is really just a restatement of the Golden Rule as found in Scripture. I am glad to read that you like what the Bible says even if it came to you through Kant.
=======================================
16 January 2007
at 4:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
75x55 (Anonymous) says…
“How about we just admit that we're making it all up.”
That is the basic core of your atheist/secularist position on morality. That is essentially my point in my ramblings.
I don't hold to that belief, so “ne'er the twain to meet”. Such is life :)
16 January 2007
at 4:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
smith (Anonymous) says…
“If science cannot demonstrate the existence or non-existence of invisible pink unicorns, then it also cannot demonstrate that what those pink unicorns telepathically is not the Word of the pink unicorns.”
This sentance is just as semanticly true as yours. It only sounds silly because you weren't brought up to revere pink unicorns. The take-home lesson is just because there is no evidence for or against a claim is no reason to blindly believe it. In fact, it's usually a good idea to insist on sizeable amounts of evidence before believing in something. werekaola
–––––––––––––––––––––––—
Thanks for the laugh. You might want to think about something else that is going on, however. Rather than trying to prove Scripture by telling you that it cannot be disproven by science, I am trying to point out to those that disbelieve the Bible is the Word of God based on “scientific” grounds that it is impossible to do so. In other words, why do you disbelieve the Bible? If a person takes the empirical position, how can he or she say they believe something without empirical evidence?
Rather than your comments about the pink unicorn demonstrating your position, if you think about it they actually strengthen mine. You cannot demonstrate that pink unicorns do not exist. So why do you have a belief that they do not exist? You just assume that they don't exist and don't believe that based on any evidence at all. Your worldview is eroding.
16 January 2007
at 4:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
smith (Anonymous) says…
“If He is not the moral authority, then there is no real moral authority. If morality is simply each person deciding how s/he acts, then whatever a person decides to do is moral.” — Smith
This is a false dichotomy that cannot be supported.
Kodiak
–––––––––––––––––––––––-
Which is a statement of yours that cannot be supported especially from your empirical worldview. Please support how you can make such a universal statement based on the empirical worldview.
========================================
You are making 2 assumptions here. One is that there is an absolute moral code and two that God is responsible for that absolute moral code. These assumptions are groundless and have no more logic than saying humans created morality. Kodoak
–––––––––––––––––––––––
Well, your assumptions are wrong and so you have not demonstrated your first statement I made a false dichotomy. God is not responsible for setting up some sort of moral code, He Himself is the moral code. These are not groundless assumptions at all, they are facts of the universe. Now, using your empirical presuppositions, show that those are false other than simply saying that you do not believe them.
=======================================
The reasons cited by Smith are no more valid than the reasons cited by secular humanists. As far as I am concerned the christian theist and secular humansits are on equal footing when it comes to morality. In fact I would say that the secular humanist is on stronger moral grounds than the theist. kodiak
–––––––––––––––––––––––—
Wow, what an unsupportable statement. You have just asserted that a position that cannot provide any basis for morality has stronger moral grounds than the only moral basis possible. I see that you truly trust in yourself and have no real evidence for these assertions.
16 January 2007
at 4:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
anxiousatheist (Clint Gentry) says…
Smith, under your logic anything can exist, which is patently false, (AKA a round square cannot exist). But what is most dangerous with this thought process is that it is the first step down into the pit of nihilism. A most disgusting mindset that twists in the wind, virtue of it's own existence.
16 January 2007
at 4:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
smith (Anonymous) says…
Think about this. What if God does not exist. Kodiak
––––––––––––––––––––––—
Then we have no meaning in life and there is nothing that is moral or immoral. The words we are typing mean nothing and we are in the exercise of utter futility. If at one point nothing ever existed there would still be nothing. You are exercising a hope that God does not exist in order to try to deny that you will face judgment at the end of your life.
=======================================
Then the theist that are supposedly following a moral code based on some non-existent God could be perpertrating immoral acts on humankind. Consider the story of Abraham who was willing to kill his own son to demonstrate his love for God. A theist would consider Abraham to be moral because he is following God's command. A secular humanist would consider such an act against humanity to be immoral. Kodiak
–––––––––––––––––––––––-
I suppose you would not be interested in the rest of the story on Abraham, so I won't bother. However, you seem to want to assert that Abraham killing his son was immoral. You have yet to show that this act was or could even possibly be immoral. I am trying to drive you to the point where you see that murder is not wrong unless there is a God. So you cannot just assume that murder is wrong and try to prove there is no God from that basis. You have to show that murder is indeed wrong in a way that is consistent with the atheists worldview.
========================================
A christian theist might claim their motive for being moral should be because they love God, they recognize him as their creator, they want to do what is right for its own sake, and they desire their own welfare in this life and the life to come. But a secular humanist can make a similar declaration of equal merit. For example, a secular humanist could claim their motive for being moral should be because they love humankind, they recognize their debt to society, they want to do what is good for its own sake, and they desire their own welfare in this life as well as the welfare of generations to come. Kodiak
–––––––––––––––––––––––
However, from your worldview, why is love any better than hate? What is love anyway? Where would a debt to society come from and how could anyone be in debt to society? In order for good to be good, you are going to have to demonstrate how your worldview can maintain that anything is good rather than evil. All the things you are talking about here are inconsistent with your worldview and consistent with Christianity. In other words, you have to assume that Christiantity is true in order to try to show that it is false. So far you have shown nothing that demonstrates that your worldview can provide any standard or basis for morality.
16 January 2007
at 4:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
smith (Anonymous) says…
because they appeal to exactly the same values, and a Christian has no better reason to commit to these values than a secular humanist. Kodiak
–––––––––––
Your worldview cannot support these values as being values. You have no reason to be moral or want anyone else to be moral from your worldview. The Bible does not teach being good for the sake of being good, but out of love for God. So being good is not valuable in and of itself, but only out of love for God. All the outwardly good things that people do if not done out of love for God are actually sinful. They did not do them out of love for God and so they were done for the idol of self.
=======================================
Self-interest is what drives the theist. He or she wants to enjoy an afterlife in heaven so fear of being in hell drives them to be good Kodiak
––––––––––––-
Here, is where your Christian knowledge is demonstrated to be manifestly false and the opposite of the truth. Christianity teaches that salvation is a free gift of grace and cannot be earned. It is the self-love that a person must deny in order to be a Christian. It is the love of God in a person that moves the Christian to do good works. Again, no one is saved by good works, but one is saved in order to do good works. Works do not and cannot contribute to salvation in the slightest. That is biblical Christianity. It exalts in the free grace of God in giving salvation, not in working for it. Sure there are many who try to work their way into heaven, but that just shows that they do not understand the Scriptures. Read Romans 3:23-32; Eph 2:1-10 and Titus 3:4-7 if you want some rather clear statements on that.
========================================
However someone who professes to be a secular humanist and follows a moral code because of their love for humankind is a much stronger person from a morality standpoint. They choose to be moral for the betterment of humankind.
––––––––––––––––––––––-
What moral code can a secular humanists come up with that dan demontrate that it is really moral to do so? Why do you think love is a moral code at all and are you so sure that a secular humanists is really loving anybody in an effort to be moral? The whole issue of morality as you have presented is hideously selfish. It is just people wanting to show that they can be good or moral apart from God. Sorry, but a love for humanity apart from the love of God is not real love since God is the only source for love that there is. If a person does not love God, then a person cannot love human beings that are made in His image. You are still left without a standard or basis for morality. Stop stealing from a moral basis from Christianity (though not really Christian) in order to say that you can keep one.
16 January 2007
at 4:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
smith (Anonymous) says…
Smith, under your logic anything can exist, which is patently false, (AKA a round square cannot exist). But what is most dangerous with this thought process is that it is the first step down into the pit of nihilism. A most disgusting mindset that twists in the wind, virtue of it's own existence. anxiousatheist
–––––––––––––––––––––––
I see you are not following true logic. My views are as opposite of nihilism as one can be. I am, however, trying to show you that the atheistic humanism view is logically nihilistic. Therefore, if you think that nihilism is disgusting, you are disgusted with your own view. Only the robust Christian view shows that there can be meaning to life. Only the robust Christian view demonstrates what true morality is. The fact that you have something within you that cries out for meaning and morality shows that you have been created by God and that you are deceiving yourself by talking yourself into being a professing atheist.
16 January 2007
at 5:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
smith (Anonymous) says…
You can feel sorry for me if you want to Smith, but I wouldn't waste your time on me. I certainly don't feel sorry for what I percieve to be your incorrect position regarding the Bible. I think the higher order/power's position is much better revealed in the voices and actions of people that I care about, the people I interact with, and how we fluctuate together than in any printed book. jonas
–––––––––––––––––––––––—
Fine, but how do you know that what the voices say are true? How do you know anything at all from that position and why should anyone care?
======================================
The proof, by the way, is simple. As the gospels were not written even by Jesus, but in scholars and disciples with names and histories, it is obvious that they were written by men, even if Jesus was the direct son of God himself, he is only paraphrased or distantly quoted in the Bible. jonas
––––––––––––––––––––––-
The fact that men used pens is not an argument that they were not inspired by God. The argument you have presented here does not deal with the basic issue of the Bible that God wrote the Bible through men.
======================================
And even if the Torah was dictated by God, it was still written down by man, passed down by man, copied by man, translated by man, interpreted by man, and revised by man. jonas
––––––––––––––––––––—
But that is still no argument that has any basis that God could not write through men and watch over His Word to see that it is still true.
=======================================
Nothing in the Bible suggests that God would make sure that his word remained consistent through the ages, and there are many things within that suggest that God, through his very nature, would do nothing at all to insure accuracy of translation. Save, perhaps, destroying a few cities with fire after they over-interpreted his word.
Jonas
–––––––––––––––––––––-
So far, however, you have not shown how you could have knowledge that the Bible is not the very words of God. I am still waiting on this. Remember, you have to show this from your worldview.
========================================
16 January 2007
at 5:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
smith (Anonymous) says…
At any rate, I'm not even looking for proof. My position does not requre proof, which is why I have taken it. My position is that nobody is certain in any of this, jonas
––––––––––––––––––––––
How can you be so certain that nobody is certain in any of this?
–––––––––––––––––––––––
we are all entitled to our own opinion of what morality is and where it comes from, jonas
–––––––––––––––––––––––—
It sounds like you are pretty much certain of this. However, for your statement to be true it would require the truth that there is no God and that He does not decide what morality is. Your position would also require that there be something that is moral and no one could really know what it really is. Seems inconsistent.
=======================================
and that, thus, morality is a useful tool for personal preference and in choosing your companions and environment, jonas
––––––––––––––––––––––—
What does it mean for morality to be useful? Again, how do you know that it is useful unless you know that it is true and corresponds to reality? What if, as Jesus taught, men are in darkness. Could it be that men are wondering about in the darkness and what they call morality is really highly immoral? Where did that standard of morality come from?
=======================================
but it is utterly wrong to take one version and enshrine it as something that everybody has to follow, or to even expect it to be the standard by which other people live and think if, frankly, they don't want to. jonas
––––––––––––––––––––––—
So now we have your moral absolute. Why are you setting this out as a moral absolute for all other people to go by? It is utterly wrong to have one version? So if God gives a version that all are to follow, He is wrong? The very fact that people don't want to follow the morality that God has set out demonstrates that man is at enmity with God.
========================================
Do you think that is defended logically enough? Feel free to dispute. jonas
–––––––––––––––––––––––
So far your position is not consistent with itself. I am trying to show you that. Somewhere within your system you reject all other versions of morality and want to impose your own. Where do you have a basis for that?
16 January 2007
at 5:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
smith (Anonymous) says…
That is the best point Kodiac…Theists are “moral” only under the supposition that they will be rewarded for it. It that case it isn't altruistic, it's selfish. anxiousatheist
––––––––––––––––––––—
While it is a misunerstanding of Christianity, I will simply ask you again what moral basis do you have for saying that selfishness is wrong or immoral?
==================================
While the secularists are “moral” because being “moral” is itself the prize, in this case the secularist is acting out of altruistic thought, and proceeds into altruistic actions.
anxiousatheist
–––––––––––––––––––––––—
Why do you think that altruism is a moral good? Again, do you have a true basis for saying that? Why do you think that just because someone is a secularist that this means that he is acting altruistically?
–––––––––––––––––––––-
Altruistic actions are actually impossible to do if you're a theist. Altruism is the most obvious case of freedom, or of “being free” so to speak. anxiousatheist
––––––––––––––––––––––-
Wow, you guys are really grasping at straws on this one. It is impossible to be less than selfish if you are not a Christian where the love of God is working in the person. It is impossible for a secularist to act altruistically as it is impossible to find a higher motive than self. If he argues that it is for humanity, that is still for selfish reasons since it is for humanity and he is part of humanity. For a person to be free, a person must be set free from the bondage of sin and selfishness by jesus Christ.
======================================
So as a theist (not being altruistic) you're not actually free, as you've given all cause for your actions over to an imaginary being, wow imagine that! anxiousatheist
–––––––––––––––––––––––-
True freedom is found in loving God as the highest motive. Altruism is simply a figment of the imagination, though it is interesting that you have found a moral standard that cannot be supported as moral within your worldview. Why is altruism moral at all? While you wish to deceive yourself into thinking that God is but an imaginary being, you have no support for that position either. Keep trying to find some reason and a basis for morality in a consistent way from your own worldview. You will find that there is none. Your cry for morality is more real evidence that you should ask yourself where it came from and how could all these billions of people have that same cry for morality if there is no morality to be found from your worldview. Your escape to altruism as morality shows that you recognize that there is a God that you must answer to.
16 January 2007
at 5:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Kodiac (Anonymous) says…
Smith,
You keep proving my point over and over again. There is no “true logic” about being a theist or an atheist. It is all about faith. Logic cannot and will not prove one way or another. Also for the record I have neither said that I am an atheist nor a theist. All I am saying is that your position is no more defensible than that of an atheist.
16 January 2007
at 5:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ksmoderate (Anonymous) says…
Wow, smith likes the sound of his/her own voice.
Smith, I believe in meaning and morality, but not from a theist view. No matter how many words you use, nothing will change that for me. Murder is wrong because it's wrong. Stealing is wrong because it's wrong. Both of those (I believe you would call them “sins”) are wrong because they cause an unsafe and unstable society. You may think that I'm denying god, and that's your perogative to do so, if that makes you feel better.
16 January 2007
at 5:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
Smith— is it OK if I take a nap during your sermons? (nudge me if I start to snore.)
16 January 2007
at 6:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
logicsound04 (Anonymous) says…
excerpt from the letter:
“The only position that can answer the cry of the human heart and mind is that of theism. No other position tells us what morality is and provides an oughtness to them.”
––––––––—
So we are to base our morality on something from above that may or may not exist? That seems to be the first, and most glaring problem with your argument—that your proclaimed source may not even exist.
But okay, I'll use your premise—that G/god(s) DO/DOES exist—but I've got a question: how did WE come to understand it's morality? Don't you ever worry, Mr. Smith, that as fallible humans, we may have gotten the message wrong, or taken it out of context, or ridiculously made it into a set of rules? Or how about those humans that may not be so pure at heart that would claim to speak on God's behalf? How are we, as beings without a moral compass, supposed to tell who is truly channeling the word of god(s) and who is pretending for his own means?
And finally, if theistic-based morality is the guidline of choice, which set of morals do you use?
You see, based on one form of theism, most of the American population would be committing a grave moral faux pas every day, as they eat cows. Or am I being to relativistic for you? It must be hard to wrap such a narrow mind around such a diverse and broad world.
16 January 2007
at 7:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Calliope877 (Anonymous) says…
Morality is doing what is right no matter what you are told. Religion is doing what you are told no matter what is right.
Seems pretty simple and straight-forward to me….
16 January 2007
at 7:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink