Philosophy Now Forum

Why not? If there is no difference between the purity of the deeds, what is it about them that the atheist cannot conceive?

It's not "conceive" that's the problem: I would even suggest that any honest atheist probably *does* have to admit he has a conception of purity. The real problem is he's not rationally entitled to his conception, because he cannot explain *why purity is a good/necessary/obligatory quality.* In other words, he cannot ground his claim.

I don't think you mean purity in any sense that I would use it;

Red herring. It wouldn't matter. *Any* value term at all is beyond the power of atheism to ground. They can't ground "right/wrong," "good/bad," "useful/useless," or even "desirable/undesirable." All value terms, in an atheist's world, are simply gratuitous, and have no basis in fact.

Nonsense. I'm not a fan of Schopenhauer, but I think he had a point when he said: “Compassion is the basis of morality.” I think I can make a judgement on whether my behaviour is causing discomfort, distress or even pain in others. If so, I can make the value judgement that my behaviour is bad, just because it is my opinion that bad, with regard to behaviour, is precisely that behaviour which causes unnecessary or undeserved discomfort.
Not wishing to hurt people unnecessarily is reason enough not to.

Why, especially in a survival-of-the-fittest universe, is it "wrong" to cause pain? You may not wish to hurt people -- I grant you that -- but you have absolutely no way at all of proving that someone who *did* want to was wrong to do so.

does your god prefer a pope who by failing to act decisively allows child abuse by priests, to an atheist who condemns it?

I'm not a papist. Nor do I condone pedophelia, nor does God. But what you've got there is two different sins: pedophelia and willful, dishonest unbelef. The pedophile priest condemns the atheist, and the atheist condemns the pedophile: both are correct in their condemnation of the other, but not in their self-excusing.

Which is the greater sin? I cannot say. I think they're both indefensible.

Atheists don't have the option of repentance; they have to live with results of their deeds.

Quite true, if they insist on staying atheists. But are they really ready to pay that price? Do they really want to make that deal?

Does it not bother you that the standard you refer to puts the feelings of an immortal, omnipotent, omniscient god who ought to be able to look after himself, before those of other human beings? Atheists can base their standards on what they can see happening as a result of their actions, rather than on the words of a book, the newest portions of which are nearly 2000 years old.

Category mistake: a human is not an alternative to God. You can't even have the former without the existence of the latter. Also false dichotomy: it is possible for a moral precept to be *both* affirmed by God and recognized by mankind, as in "Don't murder." So you don't have to choose: honest, correct human morality and an accurate assessment of divine morality would be the same.

As for atheists, what "standards" can they have, other than their private prejudices and personal preferences? And if those preferences turn out to be for evil things, on what atheist basis can they even recognize that fact? No wonder they cannot repent.

I see; you have no personal values. You think it right not to kill, because the bible says so.

False dichotomy again. Is it not logically possible that correct personal values *are* God's values. If so, you can have both...indeed, you cannot have one without having the other.

Atheists, though, cannot even claim that personal autonomy is an obligatory value.

You're going to have to explain the above to me.

Easy. Atheists claim they are affirming their personal freedom, as well as the intellectual freedom of their fellow humans. But how do they know that "personal freedom" is anything more than what some of them prefer, rather than being an obligatory value for all human beings? By their own account, they don't.

The right to choose is a choice? You're not being very clear.

Then let me be more lucid. One atheist is a libertarian, and so claims to believe in his own personal freedom above all. Another is a Red Marxist, and claims that the right thing to do is to give up one's freedom to the Party, in the name of the collective good. Both make a choice. One chooses "freedom of choice"; the other chooses "giving up choice." Very simple.

Atheism, to remind you, is the assertion that no god exists,...

I had not forgotten. Thank you for the reminder of how preposterous its claim actually is. How could it know?

...it is not a 'thing' that can or cannot demonstrate the moral standing of totalitarian systems.

I agree. It does not demonstrate the moral standing of anything at all.

But on that subject: what does, say, the catholic church, with a supreme leader, whose edicts are supposed to be infallible have to say about totalitarian systems?

I'm not a Catholic: do you suppose I'm going to defend that organization? I'm happy to let them do that, if they care to.

St Augustine's prayer: 'Make me celibate, lord, but not yet.' springs to mind. How does belief in a god make your condemnation of hypocrisy more valid than mine?

Again, not a Catholic. But you've misunderstood Augustine anyway. He was clearly being ironic: he was saying that this is how people pray, and it's hypocritical to do so.

But on the second point, a condemnation of hypocrisy can only be justified if there is a real, pre-existing duty for us to be truthful and consistent. You're right: an atheist cannot prove there is. But a theist can refer to the Divine Command principle, which works just fine, granted his worldview.

Can you give an example of hypocritical lifestyle, a single case even, that I, as an atheist would not condemn, "in principle"?.

Yes. The atheist lifestyle itself. By it's own confession, it has absolutely no grounds for values; yet it insists that values exist. It says, "You should be whatever you want to be," but then also "You must not choose to be a theist." I'm presuming that you don't condemn that hypocrisy.

I will simply act according to my conviction that causing unnecessary harm or distress is something I wish to avoid.

I hope you do. Yet the Unabomber will not do that, and I would like to be able to say his personal preference for hurting people is wrong. Can you help me do that, from an atheist perspective?

Now, on the "blessedness of Henry," I would say this: Henry is "blessed" inasmuch as a truthful person always is. But he is not a saint in my view, nor, I think, would he thank me for making him one. I love his honesty and consistency, but I do not share his atheistic suppositions.

For me, Henry is what you might call "a noble adversary": I have respect for his integrity in pursuing the logic of his atheism with a rigor that more timourous souls cannot achieve. I think we'd have great conversations, and I suspect I would like him as a person. But we do not agree in our basic worldviews, only in the logical consequences of those worldviews.

"he cannot ground his claim"

Of course 'he' can.

I, for example, ground my claims in 'truth' (that which aligns with what is real, or factual), and, I ground my claims in 'myself' (one who consistently [though not without occasional error] aligns himself with what is 'true').

My distaste, for example, for the pedophile (a distaste rooted in my deeper distaste for dominating power used only for power's sake) has no 'objective' grounding (and I'd be an idiot to try and construct such a rationale) but 'is' rooted in my own subjective take on what's true, that being that no animal on this planet takes advantage of another except as a means to perpetuate itself, no animal except man, that is.

Pedophilia serves no good biological purpose: babies aren't made, life is not perpetuated...the pedophile merely looks to satisfy a base and unimpressive impulse and he (or she) uses the weak as the vehicle for that satisfaction.

The antelope -- in the least -- keeps the cheetah alive when eaten; the child is only (ab)used.


Hmmm....as I read the above, it occurs to me I not only gave you my subjective grounding but also -- I think -- a sound *objective grounding for blowing the heads offa pedophiles.

*shrug*

#

"I have respect for his integrity in pursuing the logic of his atheism"

I appreciate the kind words.

One tiny correction, though: I'm Henry Quirk...atheism is a function of me, not the definer of me.

You see the difference, yes?

#

"a noble adversary"

HA!

I can live with that...

#

"we do not agree in our basic worldviews"

No, we don't...I can live with that too...









*insanity resulting in a kind of impotent parasitism

"You must not choose to be a theist."

HA!

Being indifferent: I could not care less what the other guy does (I'm not aligned with Dawkins or Gillette).

Mannie, you go be the best damned believer you can be.

#

"how preposterous its claim actually is"

Indeed. I only say 'I' see no evidence of Architect/Creator/Sustainer.

I could be wrong...HA!

##

..."they have to live with results of their deeds."

Only if caught...

henry quirk wrote:"You must not choose to be a theist."
HA!
Being indifferent: I could not care less what the other guy does (I'm not aligned with Dawkins or Gillette).
Mannie, you go be the best damned believer you can be.
#
"how preposterous its claim actually is"
Indeed. I only say 'I' see no evidence of Architect/Creator/Sustainer.
I could be wrong...HA!
##
..."they have to live with results of their deeds."
Only if caught...

Death catches everyone (as far as we know), so one day you will know the error of your ways, or you will cease to exist and not know anything. I know what I believe will happen, and I think I know what you believe. It's also possible that because you are a good person (in my opinion), certain failings will be over looked. If God exists (which is what I believe) God is more interested in redemption than condemnation.

"he cannot ground his claim"

Of course 'he' can.

I, for example, ground my claims in 'truth' (that which aligns with what is real, or factual), and, I ground my claims in 'myself' (one who consistently [though not without occasional error] aligns himself with what is 'true').

Ah, but Henry...you misunderstand what "ground" implies. It implies, among other things, "Make obligatory for other people." Thus a claim "grounded" only in the self would mean a claim ungrounded. It would mean only an expression of personal preference, and no moral injunction of any kind.

I agree fully with your personal distaste toward pedophiles; yet I would wish to go further, and say that anyone who does not agree with our condemnation of them is bad or mad. To do that, I would have to make my claim obligatory on them. I would have to say something like, "They are just plain wrong for being pedophiles."

Unless I misunderstand you, you're more of the moral atomist sort, maybe even to the point of moral nihilism. And I think that's what your opponents are sensing, and why they're tempted to claim you're a bad man for thinking that way.

However, I don't see their ad hominem attack as warranted.

henry quirk wrote:As I said...

'Cause I don't like bullies, that's why (can't think of a more 'bullying' act than an adult cramming his willie up some boy's bum, or inside some girl's woo-hoo). While the (as I see it) unjustified domination of one by another (for no reason other than one is more capable or powerful than other) is no more meaningful than any other act (on the grand scale), it still grinds my gears...sure as shit: I'll redress the balance between one and other as I'm capable.

As reason(s), the above is sufficient for me to not engage in the behavior.

I'm many things, Hobbes, but an inconsistent hypocrite is not one of them.

Try again.

Then allow me to remind you what you in fact said ;"As an atheist, I take this position not because pedophilia is 'wrong' or 'bad' in some absolutist/universalist sense, but solely because I love (beyond measure) my nephew and would not take kindly to his being used as a 'receptacle' or sex toy. His value to me is as a person who brings joy (with a smidge of misery) to my living, a living that would more bleak in his absence."

Now you tell me that rather than being simply motivated by the love you have for your nephew, you are now extending this proscription against paedophilia to the objective.
You are making a universal judgement about the protection of all 'underage' persons about sex.

Immanuel Cannot; "It's not "conceive" that's the problem: I would even suggest that any honest atheist probably *does* have to admit he has a conception of purity. The real problem is he's not rationally entitled to his conception, because he cannot explain *why purity is a good/necessary/obligatory quality.* In other words, he cannot ground his claim."

What sort of bizarre world do you think you are living in?
The above claim stretches the bounds of decency. It is clearly hypothetical and utterly groundless to talk about any atheist in this way. You simple do not have the monopoly on the concept of "pure".

Not only have you managed the original context of the word as used in this thread, you have shown yourself to claim some sort of moral high-ground based only on the delusion you hold about "god.
You are defenceless and taking a ridiculous position.

Immanuel Can wrote: *Any* value term at all is beyond the power of atheism to ground. They can't ground "right/wrong," "good/bad," "useful/useless," or even "desirable/undesirable." All value terms, in an atheist's world, are simply gratuitous, and have no basis in fact.

As far as I can tell, you are using the term 'ground' to mean 'demonstrate to be commensurate with my religious persuasion'. Your value terms are relative to the whims you ascribe to your god of choice. You say you're not a catholic, fair enough; how did you come to be the shade of theist that you are? Given the range of options, I can only assume that some element of personal choice was involved; in which case your moral beliefs are 'grounded' in your choice, not some objective truth.

Immanuel Can wrote:Why, especially in a survival-of-the-fittest universe, is it "wrong" to cause pain? You may not wish to hurt people -- I grant you that -- but you have absolutely no way at all of proving that someone who *did* want to was wrong to do so.

I can't prove that it is logically wrong to do so, and I don't care.

Immanuel Can wrote:The pedophile priest condemns the atheist, and the atheist condemns the pedophile: both are correct in their condemnation of the other, but not in their self-excusing.

Which is the greater sin? I cannot say. I think they're both indefensible.

This is where your god becomes objectionable; does your god really tell you that child abuse is no worse than atheism?

Immanuel Can wrote:

Atheists don't have the option of repentance; they have to live with results of their deeds.

Quite true, if they insist on staying atheists. But are they really ready to pay that price? Do they really want to make that deal?

With an idiot god that cannot discriminate between indifference to him and paedophila? No thanks.

Immanuel Can wrote:So you don't have to choose: honest, correct human morality and an accurate assessment of divine morality would be the same.

I disagree. Honest, correct human morality can easily discriminate between atheism and paedophilia.

Immanuel Can wrote:... I would like to be able to say his personal preference for hurting people is wrong. Can you help me do that, from an atheist perspective?

Repeat after me: Hurting people is wrong.

Immanuel Can wrote:Now, on the "blessedness of Henry," I would say this: Henry is "blessed" inasmuch as a truthful person always is. But he is not a saint in my view, nor, I think, would he thank me for making him one. I love his honesty and consistency, but I do not share his atheistic suppositions.

For me, Henry is what you might call "a noble adversary": I have respect for his integrity in pursuing the logic of his atheism with a rigor that more timourous souls cannot achieve. I think we'd have great conversations, and I suspect I would like him as a person. But we do not agree in our basic worldviews, only in the logical consequences of those worldviews.

My apologies to The Noble Henry for calling him Blessed.

Mannie,

"you misunderstand what "ground" implies"

Yep...I stand corrected...thanks.

#

"I would wish to go further, and say that anyone who does not agree with our condemnation of them is bad or mad. To do that, I would have to make my claim obligatory on them. I would have to say something like, "They are just plain wrong for being pedophiles." "

Well, without 'grounding' I 'do' say that...I find the child rapist repugnant...I see no good coming from him (or her).

#

"Unless I misunderstand you, you're more of the moral atomist sort, maybe even to the point of moral nihilism. And I think that's what your opponents are sensing, and why they're tempted to claim you're a bad man for thinking that way."

All I claim to be is 'Henry Quirk' (who probably is a 'moral atomist sort' and a 'bad man').

#

"However, I don't see their ad hominem attack as warranted."

Well, each can have at me as each is capable...thick skin.

##

"You are making a universal judgement about the protection of all 'underage' persons about sex."

Nope, I'm making a practical, experiential, assessment of what 'I' will do.

My assessment is only 'universal' or 'absolute' in that I will consistently oppose the pedophile (hi, K!) across all environments and circumstances...what 'you' do (when, for example, you come across an adult raping a child) is on 'you'.

Mannie,

"Make obligatory for other people."

This happens every day.

The one or ones with the bigger (or more wisely applied smaller) stick consistently impose on others, obligating those others to all manner of things.

You might argue the only authentic grounding is that which is in GOD; I might argue that if GOD is real, HIS position is only solid 'cause HE's got the BIGGEST stick...HA!

"certain failings will be over looked"



##

"The Noble Henry"

HA!

What sort of bizarre world do you think you are living in?
The above claim stretches the bounds of decency. It is clearly hypothetical and utterly groundless to talk about any atheist in this way. You simple do not have the monopoly on the concept of "pure".

Not true. It might be "indecent" to say something like "All atheists are impure." I don't say that. All I say is that the concept of purity makes no sense from the naturalistic worldview that grounds atheism. Nothing is pure or impure: it just "is."

And by the way, the atheist David Hume said it before I did. So the "bizarre world" you mention is the atheistic world.

Not only have you managed the original context of the word as used in this thread, you have shown yourself to claim some sort of moral high-ground based only on the delusion you hold about "god.
You are defenceless and taking a ridiculous position.

I'm certainly not defenseless here, and I'm only assigning to the word "pure," or to any other such term, the category "value-laden," which every sensible person knows is correct. As for myself, I make no claims about my personal purity. I'm just saying that atheism has no such concepts -- at least not in any grounded way. It's a straightforward argument, even conceded by people like Dawkins, who when pressed admits the same thing in public.

Dear Uwot:

You write,

As far as I can tell, you are using the term 'ground' to mean 'demonstrate to be commensurate with my religious persuasion'.

No. Not at all. Grounding one's belief is something that anyone who believe in rationality and the importance of personal autonomy ought to do. The only alternative is making propaganda -- i.e. ungrounded claims that one does not expect others to accept on a rational basis. I won't do that, and I hope you won't either.

Your value terms are relative to the whims you ascribe to your god of choice.

No again. But it is true that all value terms depend on there being a basis of the arbitration of value. Human beings, since they are not ultimate, cannot be the arbitors of "ultimate" values, if such exist. If you want to say, "They don't exist," then I accept your consistency with atheism, and have no more questions. It's only when you say, "My values are justified," but then do not show any grounds to justify any, that I have further questions. I want to know if you expect us to accept your values purely based on your own word.

how did you come to be the shade of theist that you are?

It happened when I took an honest look at Jesus Christ as a person and as a philosopher. I was convinced by his character and his teaching first, then chose to follow Him. My philosophy as a theist developed out of that personal commitment. But subsequently, I've found theism a very powerful point of view from which to launch philosophical thought.

Given the range of options, I can only assume that some element of personal choice was involved; in which case your moral beliefs are 'grounded' in your choice, not some objective truth.

No again. Personal choice is not the opposite of objective truth. I can choose to respect the law of gravity, or to ignore it. It's objective, but I remain free as to my disposition toward belief in it.

Immanuel Can wrote:
Why, especially in a survival-of-the-fittest universe, is it "wrong" to cause pain? You may not wish to hurt people -- I grant you that -- but you have absolutely no way at all of proving that someone who *did* want to was wrong to do so.

I can't prove that it is logically wrong to do so, and I don't care.

If you're interested in equality, you should care. But the fact that you concede you cannot prove it logically wrong should tell you something about the real quality of your existing beliefs.

This is where your god becomes objectionable; does your god really tell you that child abuse is no worse than atheism?

It depends on how you look at it. Assuming (just heuristically, for argument's sake) that a Supreme Being of some kind exists, then which is the worst sin: harming one of His creatures, or rejecting the Source of life and goodness Himself?

I would suggest the two sins are not unrelated: one who has contempt for the Creator can more easily have contempt for the creature He made. If the pedophile priests really believed in the Creator the way they may say they do, then they would tremble at the heinousness of what they have done to his creatures as well. So they are, in a manner of speaking, both pedophiles and hypocrites.

It is perhaps our own conceit that we think that sins committed against humans must be greater than those committed against God. But he who hates God hates all light, all goodness and all grace -- not merely that found in certain of His creatures. The Bible claims that ultimately *all* sins are really sins against God. And He says it would be better for pedophiles to be tied to a brick and thrown into the ocean than to have done what they have done.

Sounds pretty straightforward as a condemnation of pedophiles, don't you think?

But now let's do the opposite assumption, just for argument's sake. Let's suppose there's no God. Please explain why, in a purely naturalistic, dog-eat-dog world it would be "wrong" to harm anyone, even children?

Repeat after me: Hurting people is wrong.

That's the problem -- you can't say *why* anyone should "repeat after" you, since you insist it's only you that's saying it. Being dogmatic won't save your case here. It's just an error more strongly asserted. Some people will chose not to "repeat after" you any of your moral precepts.

So again I put it to you: how do you ground your claim that hurting people is wrong? I believe it, for my theistic reasons: but why do *you* believe it? Where are your grounds?

Immanuel, what about morality being grounded in the motive from which an action is done? As per Kantian ethics.

Immanuel Can wrote:

What sort of bizarre world do you think you are living in?
The above claim stretches the bounds of decency. It is clearly hypothetical and utterly groundless to talk about any atheist in this way. You simple do not have the monopoly on the concept of "pure".

Not true. It might be "indecent" to say something like "All atheists are impure." I don't say that. All I say is that the concept of purity makes no sense from the naturalistic worldview that grounds atheism. Nothing is pure or impure: it just "is."
That would just make you bat-shit crazy.

And by the way, the atheist David Hume said it before I did. So the "bizarre world" you mention is the atheistic world.

No he did not. Please cite. First say what "it" is, then show me where Hume said it.

Not only have you managed the original context of the word as used in this thread, you have shown yourself to claim some sort of moral high-ground based only on the delusion you hold about "god.
You are defenceless and taking a ridiculous position.

I'm certainly not defenseless here, and I'm only assigning to the word "pure," or to any other such term, the category "value-laden," which every sensible person knows is correct. As for myself, I make no claims about my personal purity. I'm just saying that atheism has no such concepts -- at least not in any grounded way. It's a straightforward argument, even conceded by people like Dawkins, who when pressed admits the same thing in public.

I'll aree you have some sort of purity.
You are a pure idiot.