Fabianism

[Immanuel Can]

WHY the assumption that the moral code of a "false religion" would NECESSARILY be false.

It would depend. It could be accidentally true in some part; but it would be highly likely to go wrong in others, due to the falseness of its grounding suppositions. And if it contradicts others, then both cannot logically be true at the same time...so we'd have to see if there is a genuine contradiction involved.

All moral frameworks have be assessed against the divine standard, of course.

[Gary Childress]

If you want to believe in a benevolent God who created a world full of suffering and unhappiness, then by all means, do.

You're missing the point again, Gary.

Even if all religions were false, it wouldn't help Atheism ground a single moral principle. The problem's inherent to Atheism.

Wouldn't it be better for a human being to know "why" something is right or wrong? I mean, is "because God says so" really knowing "why" something is right or wrong? If an atheist says murder is wrong because it creates general fear and unhappiness and causes great harm to the well-being of society and its members, does that count as less of a reason "why" murder is immoral than "God says so"? If your position is that something is right or wrong because it's written in the Bible, then do you really know "why" it's right or wrong? And if so, then how does "God says so" count as an explanation of "why" an action is right or wrong? Are you any more knowledgeable about "why" something is right or wrong than atheists are?

[Dubious]

If you want to believe in a benevolent God who created a world full of suffering and unhappiness, then by all means, do.

You're missing the point again, Gary.

Even if all religions were false, it wouldn't help Atheism ground a single moral principle. The problem's inherent to Atheism.

Wouldn't it be better for a human being to know "why" something is right or wrong? I mean, is "because God says so" really knowing "why" something is right or wrong? If an atheist says murder is wrong because it creates general fear and unhappiness and causes great harm to the well-being of society and its members, does that count as less of a reason "why" murder is immoral than "God says so"? If your position is that something is right or wrong because it's written in the Bible, then do you really know "why" it's right or wrong? And if so, then how does "God says so" count as an explanation of "why" an action is right or wrong? Are you any more knowledgeable about "why" something is right or wrong than atheists are?

Well you know, god doesn't owe us an explanation or, for that matter, anyone who rules by divine right. Any kind of justification a human would logically ask for or even demand, would be a considered a major infringement and the worst of crimes by those so mandated...whether it be the head-honcho Himself or his self-anointed delegates who have reigned throughout history.

Just as Adam & Eve lost their place in paradise by refusing to remain stupid, god and his subordinates on earth are apt to lose power by disrespectful questions that asks for an explanation.

...but I'm sure IC, completely subservient to the will of god by always obeying and never asking, will come up with a far better explanation!

[phyllo]

WHY the assumption that the moral code of a "false religion" would NECESSARILY be false. WHY would it NECESSARILY be different in some important way.

It's false morality because in IC's world, the source is all important ... the content is not.

[MikeNovack]

WHY the assumption that the moral code of a "false religion" would NECESSARILY be false.

It would depend. It could be accidentally true in some part; but it would be highly likely to go wrong in others, due to the falseness of its grounding suppositions.

Again, this has NOTHING to do with Fabianism. I will move to the thread created for this discussion in the Ethical Theory section of the forum.

[Immanuel Can]

If you want to believe in a benevolent God who created a world full of suffering and unhappiness, then by all means, do.

You're missing the point again, Gary.

Even if all religions were false, it wouldn't help Atheism ground a single moral principle. The problem's inherent to Atheism.

Wouldn't it be better for a human being to know "why" something is right or wrong?

Absolutely. That is precisely my point. If you have no reason why, you have no great motive to persist in being good, do you? So for certain, that's necessary...and it's the thing Atheism cannot deliver.

I mean, is "because God says so" really knowing "why" something is right or wrong?

Yes. It's an excellent starting point, and there can be no other, in fact. We can go forward and ask a further question, such as "why has God said that?" and that's perfectly reasonable to do...in fact, we absolutely should. But the only indicator we have of objective morality is the divine one. Otherwise, we wouldn't even know what to investigate.

As we start to investigate we often find there are often further reasons why God has said this or that is moral or immoral. And often, we can figure these out. For example, a whole society cannot run on amorality. We could not secure ourselves, supply our needs, protect ourselves, or conduct social relations without certain moral precepts. But the utility of the moral precepts is not the same as their authority. God is the moral authority, and the utility of the precepts is a bonus, a gracious gift from him to help us to organize and sustain our social world in ways we never could if we had no moral compass.

If an atheist says murder is wrong because it creates general fear and unhappiness and causes great harm to the well-being of society and its members, does that count as less of a reason "why" murder is immoral than "God says so"?

It certainly does.

It leaves us all free to decide what we fear, whether we care about anybody's happiness but our own, to define "harm" to our own tastes, and to decide what our society deserves by way of "well-being" in such a way that it favours our own selfish interests. For that reason, it actually demands nothing of us by way of duty or responsibility to others. And worst of all, it cannot stand up to the first question of a child: "why?"

[Immanuel Can]

WHY the assumption that the moral code of a "false religion" would NECESSARILY be false.

It would depend. It could be accidentally true in some part; but it would be highly likely to go wrong in others, due to the falseness of its grounding suppositions.

Again, this has NOTHING to do with Fabianism. I will move to the thread created for this discussion in the Ethical Theory section of the forum.

Your prerogative. Our prerogative as to whether or not we follow.

[MikeNovack]

It would depend. It could be accidentally true in some part; but it would be highly likely to go wrong in others, due to the falseness of its grounding suppositions.

Again, this has NOTHING to do with Fabianism. I will move to the thread created for this discussion in the Ethical Theory section of the forum.

Your prerogative. Our prerogative as to whether or not we follow.

Of course you can persist in attempting to disrupt discussions perverting the thread topic to something else you want to discuss

[Gary Childress]

You're missing the point again, Gary.

Even if all religions were false, it wouldn't help Atheism ground a single moral principle. The problem's inherent to Atheism.

Wouldn't it be better for a human being to know "why" something is right or wrong?

Absolutely. That is precisely my point. If you have no reason why, you have no great motive to persist in being good, do you? So for certain, that's necessary...and it's the thing Atheism cannot deliver.

I mean, is "because God says so" really knowing "why" something is right or wrong?

Yes. It's an excellent starting point, and there can be no other, in fact. We can go forward and ask a further question, such as "why has God said that?" and that's perfectly reasonable to do...in fact, we absolutely should. But the only indicator we have of objective morality is the divine one. Otherwise, we wouldn't even know what to investigate.

As we start to investigate we often find there are often further reasons why God has said this or that is moral or immoral. And often, we can figure these out. For example, a whole society cannot run on amorality. We could not secure ourselves, supply our needs, protect ourselves, or conduct social relations without certain moral precepts. But the utility of the moral precepts is not the same as their authority. God is the moral authority, and the utility of the precepts is a bonus, a gracious gift from him to help us to organize and sustain our social world in ways we never could if we had no moral compass.

If an atheist says murder is wrong because it creates general fear and unhappiness and causes great harm to the well-being of society and its members, does that count as less of a reason "why" murder is immoral than "God says so"?

It certainly does.

It leaves us all free to decide what we fear, whether we care about anybody's happiness but our own, to define "harm" to our own tastes, and to decide what our society deserves by way of "well-being" in such a way that it favours our own selfish interests. For that reason, it actually demands nothing of us by way of duty or responsibility to others. And worst of all, it cannot stand up to the first question of a child: "why?"

I see. So "because God says so" tells you "why" something is immoral. And since atheists can only measure something as being moral or immoral by determining what pragmatic effects an action would have on ourselves and others around us, atheists therefore have an 'inferior' understanding of why something is moral or immoral. Is that correct?

So, something is not immoral necessarily or only because it harms people or moral because it helps people, it's only moral or immoral if God also says we ought to or else ought not to do something? Is that correct?

Would it be moral for God to tell us to commit genocide if it is, in fact, God who tells us to do it. Can or could God command us to do something immoral? Or would God telling us to do something that seems immoral to us make that act moral instead (even though our intuition tells us it's not)?

[Immanuel Can]

...perverting the thread topic...

Well, as I'm the guy who started the thread, you can let me decide what is "perverted" and what is not.

[Immanuel Can]

...since atheists can only measure something as being moral or immoral by determining what pragmatic effects an action would have on ourselves and others around us,

No, they can't even do that much. What, about Atheism, tells them what "effects" are appropriate?

Can or could God command us to do something immoral?

Of course not. Firstly, because as the ultimate indicator of what is moral, it's conceptually impossible. But secondarily, God Himself has a particular character that is moral, and He, alone, of all beings, does not ever have do that which is immoral.

[Gary Childress]

...since atheists can only measure something as being moral or immoral by determining what pragmatic effects an action would have on ourselves and others around us,

No, they can't even do that much. What, about Atheism, tells them what "effects" are appropriate?

Can or could God command us to do something immoral?

Of course not. Firstly, because as the ultimate indicator of what is moral, it's conceptually impossible. But secondarily, God Himself has a particular character that is moral, and He, alone, of all beings, does not ever have do that which is immoral.

We live in different worlds. You live as a Christian in a world of magic, hope and optimism. I live as a secular person who lives in a world of tragedy, fate, and anxiety. They are different worlds. I hope you understand that I cannot see truth in your statements from where I stand. And it seems plain to me that you cannot see truth in mine. We will never agree, and we will never understand each other. That is my prediction based on my perception.

Have a good day.

[Immanuel Can]

...since atheists can only measure something as being moral or immoral by determining what pragmatic effects an action would have on ourselves and others around us,

No, they can't even do that much. What, about Atheism, tells them what "effects" are appropriate?

Can or could God command us to do something immoral?

Of course not. Firstly, because as the ultimate indicator of what is moral, it's conceptually impossible. But secondarily, God Himself has a particular character that is moral, and He, alone, of all beings, does not ever have do that which is immoral.

We live in different worlds.

No, the same one. But we understand it differently.

I live as a secular person who lives in a world of tragedy, fate, and anxiety.

Tragedy requires a "could have been." The tragic hero is tragic because he need not have died, need not have suffered, and merited a better outcome. In the secular world, there's no "could have been." There's no nobility, no merit, no better outcome. There are only the crass facts of what is. There's nothing genuinely "tragic" in it, because it tells you you could never have been other than you are. Just dull inevitability.

I understand that's what you think the world is. But it's not.

[Gary Childress]

I understand that's what you think the world is. But it's not.

And I give those same words back to you. Buzz off.

[Immanuel Can]

I understand that's what you think the world is. But it's not.

And I give those same words back to you. Buzz off.

I'm not being insulting. I'm being truthful. But as you wish.