Dre
Member
Posts: 397
|
Post by Dre on Feb 20, 2013 1:08:48 GMT -8
The Bible has been scrutinized by many people, many of whom are non-believiers. Bart Ehrman, a Biblical scholar of over 25 years, who has read every Christian text 500 years after Jesus' death, and is fluent in all three languages the scriptures were originally written in, went into the profession a believer and is now no longer a believer due to what he has learned. I'm not saying that that means the Bible isn't true, but the idea that everyone who studies the Bible will come to believe in it is completely false.
Also, the fact that Christianity 'still stands' has nothing to do with how logical or true it is. Christianity only became the world power it is today because it was made the official religion of the Roman Empire. It continues on because believers indoctrinate their children at impressionable ages, and stick together in communities. Sudies show that you're likely to believe what you're brought up with, and people in communities of like-minded people (ie. religious people in a religious community) are likely minded to become close-minded to other beliefs. Humans also have an inherent instinct to justify their beliefs and are resistant to change.
That's why Christianity 'still stands'. It's for similar reasons that slam not only still stands, but now has more followers than Christianity. We know that people will believe anything if they're brought up in an environment where that is the standard, especially if indoctrinated at an impressionable age. The only difference between Christianity and the tribal religions of Africa was that Christianity was made the official religion of the greatest world power at the time.
And yes, those are inconcistencies. You can always say 'well it's not a contradiction if you look at the context' to avoid basically any contradiction. I have to ask that if you will not accept those as biblical contradictions, what would you in fact accept. That's the thing, no matter how blatant the contradiction is, Christians will always play the context card despite the Bible clearly make completely contradictory statements.
I never said all my arguments are from hard science. I said most of my arguments are from science and from research. You criticise me for commenting on what most atheists want, but you were who said that atheists deconvert because they don't want the truth. Do you realise how hyppocritical that is?
You're setting a double standard. You're saying you'll only accept hard science, and criticise me for commenting on what atheists want, but then say that atheists deconvert because they don't want to accept the truth.
Apart from being hyppocritical, the idea that that's why atheists deconvert is almost impossible to be true. If you actually hated god, then you would still believe in him, thus you wouldn't be an atheist. Your sentiment toward something has nothing to do with whether it's true or not. You can be a Christian and hate god for killling innocent people and sending millions more to eternal suffering. Or you can be an atheist and wish god existed because of how convenient and comforting it is to believe that someone is always watching you and that you'll be rewarded with eternal happiness simply for believing something exists.
Hating someone (a moral judgement) and believing they don't exist exist (an epistemic judgement) are two completely different things. Christians such as yourself (evidenced by what you said) want to people think that people do the latter because of the former. This is why it's known as a confusion of categories fallacy, because you're confusing morality with epistemology or reason. That is a straight fallacy, no way around it. That's why Christian philosophers never make that argument.
It's also hilarious that you think that the Bible isn't temporal and somehow above culture. The Bible is entirely cultural. It's moral teachings are in line with the culture of it's time. It's mentality towards slavery, use of heirarchy and women are examples of that. Something like 8 different pre-Christianity religions had virgin births as central theological plot points. Most theological elements of the Bible are borrowed from North African religions. We have even found Egyptian tombs that pre-date Christianity with biblical passages on them. Many passages in the Bible was are supposed to be historically factual, such as the Barabus passage, are known to simply be adaptions from Jewish traditions.
Add to that, the Bible displays no knowledge of countries not known at the time, conveniently claims that the country of its writers are 'God's people', does not correct the numerous misunderstandings in science, psychology etc. of the time, and does not predict future developments in science, technology etc.
For a text that is supposedly 'divinely inspired' it does absolutely nothing to show it is anything more than another cultural text. If an all-wise god wanted people of the modern and future eras to believe an ancient text to be divinely inspired (why he even wants this to begin with is questionable, seeing as he would be capable of much better ways of proving his existence), why would he do nothing to make it appear trans-cultural or trans-era?
|
|
Dre
Member
Posts: 397
|
Post by Dre on Feb 20, 2013 1:09:31 GMT -8
Morality is an illusion, but if it did exist atheists would be more moral. Christians act morally because they believe someone is watching them and they will be rewarded for their actions. Christians also believe there is no reason to be moral if God doesn't exist, meaning they're only moral because of this reward. Atheist's are moral for morality's sake.
|
|
|
Post by Agent Syrup on Feb 20, 2013 8:42:08 GMT -8
Once again this is veering off topic... but you are making way too broad of a statement about Christians. To do good things for the sake of a reward is selfish (which irronically would then be sinful). I personally try my best to do good things but not for a reward (that almost never even crosses my mind), rather I do so for the cause of Love. I try to express my love towards God, myself and other people in the good things I do. While I do hope that love will be given back to me, I don't act well and moral towards others for the sake of what I can get out of it. And I know many, both Christian and non-Christian, who do the good things for the very same (if not similar) reason.
|
|
Dre
Member
Posts: 397
|
Post by Dre on Feb 20, 2013 14:41:49 GMT -8
But it doesn't matter what motivates you an individual to behave morally. Christianity as a whole uses a reward-punishment system to motivate you to act morally. The Bible constantly motivates people to act morally so they can go to heaven.
A lot of Christians argue that morality doesn't exist without God, or that there is no reason to be moral without him. What they're basically saying is that if there is no reward for their actions, there is no reason to be moral. That is the only difference between whether God exists or not with regards to morality, whether you're rewarded or not.
You can say that you do it out of love or whatever, but at the end of the day, you will only do acts that you know God will approve of, and get you into heaven.
|
|
|
Post by Agent Syrup on Feb 20, 2013 15:58:36 GMT -8
But it doesn't matter what motivates you an individual to behave morally. Christianity as a whole uses a reward-punishment system to motivate you to act morally. The Bible constantly motivates people to act morally so they can go to heaven. A lot of Christians argue that morality doesn't exist without God, or that there is no reason to be moral without him. What they're basically saying is that if there is no reward for their actions, there is no reason to be moral. That is the only difference between whether God exists or not with regards to morality, whether you're rewarded or not. You can say that you do it out of love or whatever, but at the end of the day, you will only do acts that you know God will approve of, and get you into heaven. There is no act that gets a man to heaven. Eternity is given to those who love the Lord, the scriptures time and time again affirm Faith as the reason for salvation.
|
|
|
Post by magic9mushroom on Feb 20, 2013 16:08:53 GMT -8
Lol. I think you're reaching just a tad there.
|
|
|
Post by Nyara? on Feb 20, 2013 22:43:06 GMT -8
I'll just gonna comment a single thing: Moral is defined by each person.
That's pretty much all, for some people, kill for food is not bad, for some others, it's not bad just on vegetables, and stuff. So, yeah, two person can have a different perception of what is good, what is bad, and what is "neutral" if something like that exist, and what is "not so bad" and stuff, atheist AND theist have their own definitation of moral.
Yes, moral is subjetive, but not an ilusion.
Again, more respect, ANY idea deserve respect, if you don't agree, good for you, but you can't disrespect the ideas of others (or I think, at least in my opinion, it doesn't do anything good for any part, and it just waste time, effort, and feelings on a without sense ego).
|
|
Dre
Member
Posts: 397
|
Post by Dre on Feb 20, 2013 23:57:40 GMT -8
Lol. I think you're reaching just a tad there. No I'm not. Nothing is 'right' or 'wrong', if I do an 'immoral' act nothing happens to me. I don't suddenly become less healthy, or have a black mark appear on my body or anything like that. The reason why we have emotional dispositions towards certain acts such as murder and theft is because we're altruistic creatures. The reason why we're altruistic is because we've evolved to live in societies, we're social creatures. 'Morality' is simply the concept of objectifying altruistic behaviour, in an attempt to make sure everyone behaves in an altruistic way, and punish those who don't. This is of benefit to social creatures because it deters them from anti-social acts, which are harmful to the species. If you look at the animal kingdom, the animals which display the most altruism are normally the more intelligent ones that are also social creatures. The concept of morality is just a product of our intelligence and reliance on societies. That's why we have emotional dispositions towards alrtuistic acts. That's why psychopaths commit 'immoral' acts, because for whatever reason they do not possess the same emotional sentiments towards these acts as we do.
|
|
|
Post by Agent Syrup on Feb 21, 2013 10:30:06 GMT -8
So Dre, what made you come to that conclusion?
|
|
Dre
Member
Posts: 397
|
Post by Dre on Feb 21, 2013 15:28:51 GMT -8
Science, looking at nature and common sense.
What we perceive as wrong is really just a negative chemical state in our brain.
Right and wrong only pertain to whether something is true or not. So to say an action is wrong is to say it's false, which means it didn't happen.
Honestly it becomes pretty clear when you just look at humans as simply one species on the planet. What you notice is that most intelligent social creatures displayed higher levels of altruism than non less intelligent and non-social creatures. What we also see is that in captivity, usually insocial creatures such as tigers will display altruism and bond with other creatures they would normally be hostile to in the wild. This is most likely because they don't need to fight for their survival in captivity, and can deviate from otherwise evolutionary benefitiary behaviour.
Morality is just an attempt to glorify altruism to stop other members of society performing self-ish or insocial activities. This is because if everyone behaved like this, our society would collapse, so it is of evolutionary benefit to us to behave altruisticially, and to think it is 'wrong' not to.
Now this doesn't mean my conscience allows me to murder and what not. I'm an altruistic creature, and still have the same mechanisms that prevent me from doing such acts, namely feeling bad for it. Whether we like it or not, all human actions are based on trying to keep postitive mental states. We don't do bad actions because we feel bad if we do. We do charitable deeds because we feel good that we've helped someone, and/or the knowledge that someone has been helped makes us feel good too.
All of it is explained by looking at nature. I simply don't need to attribute objective values such as right or wrong, or something like a soul to it because they are simply unnecessary.
|
|
|
Post by magic9mushroom on Feb 21, 2013 20:08:45 GMT -8
Lol. I think you're reaching just a tad there. No I'm not. Yeah, you damned well are. Morality is by nature an intangible concept, for which subjectivity does not imply nonexistence.
|
|
Dre
Member
Posts: 397
|
Post by Dre on Feb 21, 2013 20:54:34 GMT -8
If it's intangible I don't understand how it exists.
Love is intangible, but love is a chemical state in our brain. It has an existence there. We've just simply labelled that mental state love.
Morality doesn't exist anywhere. What does it mean if I do an 'immoral' action?
If I shoot someone and don't get caught, what happens?
The emotional disposition we have towards certain acts is altruism, not morality. If a person isn't altruistic, then they will normally do 'immoral' acts, because the mechanic which stops people from doing bad things, which is feeling bad as consequence (a chemical state in the brain) isn't present in these people.
Morality is simply a primitive and unnecessary concept. Everything it attempts to explain is explained sufficiently without it. If I do an immoral action, then tell me what happens to me, tell me where or how this immorality exists.
|
|
|
Post by jorgen on Feb 21, 2013 23:51:43 GMT -8
I don't like trying to participate in these kinds of threads anymore because I don't have a strong enough background in this field to articulate myself without meandering and sounding dumb. Plus I kinda recently outgrew stoner freshman philosophy, so yeah.
However, just because there's not necessarily some "do this" constant etched in the universe, supernaturally or otherwise, doesn't change the fact that there are important questions of "ought" and "ought not" we as humans must wrestle with. Also, there are a few principles which pretty much all humans across all cultures agree upon (e.g., don't murder) unless they're sociopaths or just being contrarian, which is about as close to translation from "is" to "ought" you're really going to get and which seems to indicate that there is an objective component to ethics.
Also, wow, shooting somebody and not getting caught does not mean it isn't still a shitty thing to do! Ethics != bad things happen to bad people.
|
|
Dre
Member
Posts: 397
|
Post by Dre on Feb 22, 2013 0:36:46 GMT -8
That's just altruism though. There are rules universal to all cultures because they are of evolutionary benefit. We're social creatures, we have evolved to live in socities. If we do unaltruistic acts our societies will collapse and we wouldn't survive as a species.
Yes, Jorgen killing someone is uncool. I would never kill an innocent person because I'm an altruistic creat ure and the knowledge that an innocent person died for no reason would make me feel absolutely terrible, just like anyone else. However, the reason why psychopaths kill is because they don't have those same feelings. If morality were separate to altruism and our emotional inclinations towards it, then the majority of psychopaths who lack altruism wouldn't be 'immoral' people, because morality would be something completely different.
You never 'have' to do anything. You only have to do things if you care about certain goals. You only have to eat food if you wish to survive. You only have to abstain from killing if you care about being an altruistic person, or care about avoiding punishment. You only have to do God's command if you care about getting to heaven and don't care about experiencing eternal suffering.
People here are just confusing their altruistic sentiments with tangible existences. Morality doesn't exist in any form. It's not an object, and it isn't some chemical state in your brain like love is. The closest thing to morality are the altruistic sentiments we experience in our brain.
Again, I pose the question. If morality exists, then show me where/what it is, and how it is different to our altruism.
|
|
|
Post by jorgen on Feb 22, 2013 6:50:44 GMT -8
Nobody is confusing morality with tangible existence. There is no clean bridge from "is" to "ought", that's what the is-ought problem is all about. What we're saying is that it doesn't make the "ought" unimportant.
|
|
|
Post by magic9mushroom on Feb 23, 2013 7:05:51 GMT -8
That's just altruism though. There are rules universal to all cultures because they are of evolutionary benefit. We're social creatures, we have evolved to live in socities. If we do unaltruistic acts our societies will collapse and we wouldn't survive as a species. The problem with nihilism (whether based on the evolutionary origin of human instincts or otherwise) is that it doesn't actually solve the is-ought problem, it just claims there isn't a solution.
|
|
Dre
Member
Posts: 397
|
Post by Dre on Feb 23, 2013 17:34:26 GMT -8
There is no problem. That problem arose because people believe in rigid objective morals.
You never ought to do something. You only out to do good deeds if you care about being altruistic.
If you don't care about being altruistic and think you can get away with it you'll most likely do insocial things, which is why psychopaths do such things.
|
|
|
Post by Agent Syrup on Feb 24, 2013 9:08:35 GMT -8
There is no problem. That problem arose because people believe in rigid objective morals. You never ought to do something. You only out to do good deeds if you care about being altruistic. If you don't care about being altruistic and think you can get away with it you'll most likely do insocial things, which is why psychopaths do such things. I think human relationships are proof against that. A man OUGHT to treat his girlfriend/wife with chivalry, and a parent OUGHT to give their children love and discipline. Not because of how social or altruistic the boyfriend or parent is, but because how much the girlfriend deserves to be treated with chivalry and the child deserves to be loved (and disciplined). Looking at morality purely from an altruistic/social sense seems to make it more focused on the self. However in a healthy relationship YOU are considered last and the other person is who should be considered first. Essentially, love isn't focused on how social you are or the benefits a relationship has for you, but rather how loved other people are because of you and the benefits THEY receive from their relationship with you.
|
|
Dre
Member
Posts: 397
|
Post by Dre on Feb 24, 2013 16:40:52 GMT -8
Human relationships are proof of our altruism that we evolved as a result of being social creatures. This is why social creatures are altruistic and insocial ones aren't.
You're just saying we ought to do stuff without proving why. What happens if I don't do it?
Again, the only reason why we think we ought to do things is because we're altruistic.
We only care about other people because we're social creatures, it is evolutionary beneficial for us to be social and have societies. That's why creatures that live in societies are far more altruistic than the ones who don't.
You just think we ought to do good deeds because of your emotional disposition.
If morality and oughts are somehow distinct from altruism and being a social creature, explain why social creatures do good things for others, and insocial creatures do not for the most part.
Also too, explain why I ought to do something, and explain what happens if I don't.
We don't need the primitive is-ought concept anymore. It's not needed for anything. Everything about human actions and relationships has been explained by science and psychology. It doesn't explain anything that isn't otherwise explained.
|
|
|
Post by Agent Syrup on Feb 25, 2013 12:57:10 GMT -8
Well it appears it comes down to a difference of world view. Here we both are looking at the same exact things, yet are coming to different conclusions.
|
|
Dre
Member
Posts: 397
|
Post by Dre on Feb 25, 2013 15:23:20 GMT -8
But you are making conclusion that are unnecessary and don't explain anything that isn't already explained.
Saying that actions can be inherently right or wrong and that we should do certain acts is like saying that whenever I go to eat my food, an invisible angel blesses my food so that it is edible for me. The angel is unnecessary because there is no empirical evidence of the statement, and the edibility of my food can be explained without it.
|
|
|
Post by posthuman on Feb 27, 2013 23:44:50 GMT -8
I wrote something, but accidentally hit the back button and deleted it. Because of that, I'll let others speak for me.
How selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature, which interest him in the fortune of others, and render their happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it except the pleasure of seeing it. Of this kind is pity or compassion, the emotion which we feel for the misery of others, when we either see it, or are made to conceive it in a very lively manner. —Adam Smith
There is some benevolence, however small, infused into our bosom; some spark of friendship for human kind; some particle of the dove kneaded into our frame, along with the elements of the wolf and the serpent. —David Hume
Morals are too essential to the happiness of man to be risked on the uncertain combinations of the head. She [nature] laid their foundation therefore in sentiment, not science. —Thomas Jefferson
Basically, there's a general sense of morality in our nature. Morality is not "subjective" or "personal". Morality is very real and ingrained in us all. Whether it was instilled there by God or through evolution, it's there.
I've written a lot on this, and if anyone's interested I can post some papers.
Edit: Sigh. After reading several more posts in this thread, I'm rediscovering my old prejudices. Nihilism is entirely ignorant. Honestly, moral subjectivism is as well. Personally, I believe in an... interesting form of objective morality. One based on our nature. For all you philosophers out there, moral objectivism is NOT moral absolutism. Know the difference. I have papers on this too, but they're much more opinion-based. I prefer my writing on moral psychology over moral philosophy.
|
|
Dre
Member
Posts: 397
|
Post by Dre on Feb 28, 2013 1:32:23 GMT -8
None of this moral objectivism is necessary until you prove how it distinct from evolutionary altruism.
We know where our motivation to do good deeds comes from. We know why we care about others. We know why feel good when we do good deeds. We know why humans believe in objective morals.
Objective morality isn't needed to explain any of that, it's an unnecessary belief that simply has evolutionary benefit.
In all these posts, no one has answered my challenge. Show me how objective morals are distinct from evolutionary altruism. Show me what happens when someone does a wrong act.
You all keep saying I'm wrong, but I haven't seen a single argument why. Until you can actually demonstrate it belief in objective morals just comes from emotional bias.
|
|
|
Post by jorgenforgotpass on Feb 28, 2013 7:57:14 GMT -8
First of all, if the belief in an objective moral code is "unnecessary", that's kind of contradicted later on in your sentence when you say it has evolutionary benefit!
Second, nobody is responding to your challenge because you're framing moral objectivism as a straw man. You're asking for people to equate moral objectivism with a belief in karmic retribution. Nobody is arguing for that, you're misunderstanding what moral objectivism really is. It's not saying anything about real consequences for actions, it's saying that there are some actions or consequences which people do or do not want to see in the world, and which we can all pretty much agree we do or do not want to see. It's not claiming a lack of moral ambiguity in certain cases, it's not claiming to have all the answers, it's just acknowledging that we know SOME objective principles about how to make interactions with other beings more pleasant.
If you'd stop being ticky-tack about wanting to call it evolutionary altruism, we'd probably see more eye-to-eye. Posthuman said it best, whether it's God-ordained or evolutionarily endowed, some moral code detailing, to some extent, what ought or ought not be done exists independently of individual prejudice or propensity to feel guilt.
I'm probably explaining this in a really strange way, so I'll just stop here. Posthuman can probably explain this better and correct me where I might be wrong, as this is more his field than mine.
|
|
|
Post by posthuman on Feb 28, 2013 10:22:49 GMT -8
Second, nobody is responding to your challenge because you're framing moral objectivism as a straw man. You're asking for people to equate moral objectivism with a belief in karmic retribution. Nobody is arguing for that, you're misunderstanding what moral objectivism really is. It's not saying anything about real consequences for actions, it's saying that there are some actions or consequences which people do or do not want to see in the world, and which we can all pretty much agree we do or do not want to see. It's not claiming a lack of moral ambiguity in certain cases, it's not claiming to have all the answers, it's just acknowledging that we know SOME objective principles about how to make interactions with other beings more pleasant. Well said. Wikipedia explains it nicely: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_universalism (moral universalism is the same as objectivism) I also agree with this view: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_pluralism
|
|
Dre
Member
Posts: 397
|
Post by Dre on Feb 28, 2013 16:39:14 GMT -8
Jorgen- I didn't contradict myself. I said the reason why we believe in objective morals has been explained by evolution, but their actual existence isn't necessary because they don't explain anything that isn't already explained. They're two different things.
I get that you guys accept moral ambiguity, but I still don't see why I 'ought' to do something. The only motivations I have are for my own personal goals. If I'm altruistic, I ought to be nice only if I have an emotional disposition to care about other people. There is always a condition to the 'ought'. The reality is, anything we do, no matter how self-less it may seem, we ultimately do to gain positive mental state.
I still think you need to display the distinction between altruism and objective morals though. Unless you consider objective morals to be synonymous with altruism (which it isn't really), your use of the term implies some form of distinction from altruism.
|
|
|
Post by magic9mushroom on Mar 2, 2013 21:27:45 GMT -8
You never ought to do something. As I said. This is not a solution, it's the abdication of the search. Nihilism is pointless because it doesn't actually recommend anything. Me, I'm an ethical subjectivist. I believe that there's no morality inherent to the universe, but that self-consistent systems of morality can be created ex nihilo by human consciousness, and that there is some use in doing so.
|
|
|
Post by posthuman on Mar 4, 2013 22:34:21 GMT -8
Dre, what are you talking about? Jorgen- I didn't contradict myself. I said the reason why we believe in objective morals has been explained by evolution, but their actual existence isn't necessary because they don't explain anything that isn't already explained. They're two different things. Seriously. I have no idea what this means. the reason why we believe in objective morals has been explained by evolution Okay, sure. But here's where you lose me: but their actual existence isn't necessary because they don't explain anything that isn't already explained. What? I still don't think you understand what is meant by "objective morality". It's obvious that you didn't read the links I posted, so let me display some of the information for you. "Moral universalism (also called moral objectivism or universal morality) is the meta-ethical position that some system of ethics, or a universal ethic, applies universally, that is, for "all similarly situated individuals", regardless of culture, race, sex, religion, nationality, sexuality, or any other distinguishing feature. Moral universalism is opposed to moral nihilism and moral relativism. However, not all forms of moral universalism are absolutist, nor are they necessarily value monist; many forms of universalism, such as utilitarianism, are non-absolutist, and some forms may be value pluralist." This, in a nutshell, means that moral universalism/objectivism is the idea that there is an ethical system that applies to all of humanity. It DOES NOT mean that we all believe in a single ethical system, or that we all MUST follow a single ethical system. It simply claims that the system of ethics EXISTS among humanity. And that last part? "some forms may be value pluralist." That means that the same values don't even have to apply to all societies--there must be a unifying factor(s) to make the system universal, but the specific values/laws each society holds need not be the same. Now onto my view: Evolution? In my eyes, evolution PROVES the existence of an objective morality. We all evolved in a certain way and developed certain moral tendencies. Nearly all humans (psychopaths excluded) have evolved innate moral intuitions, and this unifies us. There are many interpretations of these intuitive moral feelings we have--these are different human moral systems. Some of these systems we've created emphasize certain moral intuitions too much, or overshadow others. Regardless, there is still an underlying universal morality to be found in our nature.
|
|
|
Post by posthuman on Mar 10, 2013 22:05:31 GMT -8
Haha apparently my presence killed this sub-board. I guess after my posts, nothing else can be said.
|
|
Dre
Member
Posts: 397
|
Post by Dre on Mar 10, 2013 23:40:13 GMT -8
Lol na I just went off debating for a bit. I participate in these threads because I enjoy the debate and enjoy the stimulation, not to try change people's minds.
You're still not answering my initial question though, which is how moral universalism is distinct from evolutionary altruism.
All human actions and values have been explained by evolutuonary altruism, so moral universalism is an unnecessary belief until you highlight what the distinction between the two is. Unless you think they're the same thing, but then I wouldn't understand why you'd be arguing with me in the first place.
|
|