Philosophy Now Forum

Immanuel Can wrote: If they've got anything, I say let them speak for themselves.

{The crickets continue.}

I understand that you would like for Atheists to state their own position, but perhaps the ones who are members of this forum don't have one. I have listened to many atheists programs and the common theme is to not hurt another person, so I believe this is the basis for their morality. If the atheists on this forum disagree, please speak up, or be content for a non-atheist to speak for you.

Interjectivist wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote: As soon as a single Atheist shows me a single plausible Atheist reason for a single Atheist moral imperative, ..

There are no moral imperatives which are objectively the same for everyone. Morality is entirely subjective or else it has nothing to do with morality.

Then nothing is really right or wrong. And I suppose I can't look to you to answer the question, since you're not a believer in any kind of moral imperative anyway. If you're happy to take an amoral universe for granted, and to live without reference to morality, I guess I'll call you consistent -- but frankly, I've never met anyone who could do it, or wanted to.

As for your second statement, the one about "subjective" being a condition for morality, that's illogical. If something is entirely subjective, then no moral precept or evaluation can apply to it, since nobody can apply any criteria to it. In point of fact, "Ethics" is always about what we do to other persons or entities. It's actually never just about oneself.

You can see this easily if you consider what the case would be if one were the only entity in the universe: what would "morality" mean then? In the absence of anyone else's rights to infringe, it would be utterly incoherent even to speak of it. There would be nothing "right" or "wrong" to do -- everything would just be...a thing. But put one other person or entity that matters in that universe, and ethics comes back in.

If moral choices were constrained by a malevolent cosmic godfather whose offers cannot be refused, 'moral' choice would amount to nothing more than caving into coercion.

Well, if that's what one knows as "god," then I suppose that would be quite true. Good thing that's neither the nature of God, nor the way He relates to the universe.

But you might also want to consider this: if Naturalism is true, then all our actions are merely predetermined by natural laws and physical forces. Then morality would also be out the window, just with a different kind of cosmic tyranny -- an impersonal one rather than a personal one.

Any determinism -- theistic or secular -- will equally make ethics irrelevant.

thedoc wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote: If they've got anything, I say let them speak for themselves.

{The crickets continue.}

I understand that you would like for Atheists to state their own position, but perhaps the ones who are members of this forum don't have one.

I'm reasonably confident that's true. I'm also reasonably confident that they couldn't find one if they searched for a hundred years. I really don't think one even exists.

I have listened to many atheists programs and the common theme is to not hurt another person, so I believe this is the basis for their morality.

That begs the key question, though: why believe it's wrong to "hurt" somebody? How do they ground that value judgment or obligation? You see, it's all too easy to float moral precepts on nothing...but the minute someone has any reason to disagree, you need a basis on which to convince them.

So why, if I'm an Atheist, must I not choose to be a Stalin? Are they content to leave that option open to people? Would they be morally and rationally, if not personally content, if this new "Stalin" were one of their leaders? Or would they have some basis from which they could launch a reasonable moral objection?

I'd like to know.

Immanuel Can wrote: So why, if I'm an Atheist, must I not choose to be a Stalin? Are they content to leave that option open to people? Would they be morally and rationally, if not personally content, if this new "Stalin" were one of their leaders? Or would they have some basis from which they could launch a reasonable moral objection?

I'd like to know.

I don't believe it's a question of "must" but a question of "choice", an Atheist chooses to be a good person, rather than being bound by some religious precept. I'm guessing that the principle of free will is very important to them, they are free to choose to be a good person, much like a religious person is free to choose to follow a religious principle. Most Atheists reject any principle attributed to God, because they deny that God exists, but they also reject the idea that a religious person can choose to follow the precepts of a particular religion or reject them. They assume that a person who claims a particular religion is bound to follow the precepts that the Atheists assign to that religion.

I have watched several of these programs in the past, and even tried to call into the show, but apparently my call wasn't controversial enough for the screen-er to pass me through to the on line show.

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_ ... experience

Immanuel Can wrote: But you might also want to consider this: if Naturalism is true, then all our actions are merely predetermined by natural laws and physical forces. Then morality would also be out the window, just with a different kind of cosmic tyranny -- an impersonal one rather than a personal one.

Any determinism -- theistic or secular -- will equally make ethics irrelevant.

This would seem to be the portion of my post you didn't quote but are addressing here:

Inter-jectivist wrote: "Real moral action is entirely elective and hard to determine. Real life is complex, much more complex than simply complying with discrete commands from a cosmic godfather. If you were able to reduce every moral choice to a decision tree, there wouldn't be much point to living."

So you think an acceptable account of morality must be one which casts such activity in a better light than it seems to deserve? Morality is only rarely clear cut, let alone determined. Moral imperatives are not useful because life is way more complex than that. People actually have to decide how to act, and it is never as simple as "avoiding harm" or "doing the right thing" (since that is never obvious).

While relevant for bringing up of children, probably way too much fuss is made about morality where adults are concerned. To preserve social contracts we have a justice system where adults are concerned. There is no need to point a finger at the condemned after a criminal trial and tell him just how vile he is. Charles Manson is never going to give you a heartfelt "my bad".

Puzzling as it may sound, though morality is precisely about what really matters to us and what to do about that, the attempt to prescribe moral responses in an objective manner invariably misses the mark and hamstrings actual moral behavior.

thedoc wrote:I don't believe it's a question of "must" but a question of "choice", an Atheist chooses to be a good person, rather than being bound by some religious precept. I'm guessing that the principle of free will is very important to them, they are free to choose to be a good person, much like a religious person is free to choose to follow a religious principle.

Yes! Thank you for stating that without any malice. It's really very simple. Immanuel Can is convoluting it with his absurd questions.

thedoc wrote:Most Atheists reject any principle attributed to God, because they deny that God exists

Now notice your theist words here, Doc: "they deny". That's not an accurate representation for an atheist. It's not "denial" when you don't believe in something that seems absurd to you.

thedoc wrote:but they also reject the idea that a religious person can choose to follow the precepts of a particular religion or reject them.

Really? I don't reject that... and all the theists I know don't reject that.

thedoc wrote:They assume that a person who claims a particular religion is bound to follow the precepts that the Atheists assign to that religion.

I don't know who you've been talking to... but I don't think that's a common assumption. Theists have so many different levels and degrees of belief, regardless of whatever religious affiliation they have. That's just natural. I think that theists (rather than atheists) are more likely to assign everything as black or white... because their faith and belief must be fed by certainty... which the "black or white" categories offer them, yes? And that's why it might be hard if not impossible for an atheist to answer to some theists' mindsets and understanding, because everything must fit into the theist black or white model. An atheist doesn't function like that.

Lacewing wrote:

thedoc wrote: They assume that a person who claims a particular religion is bound to follow the precepts that the Atheists assign to that religion.

I don't know who you've been talking to... but I don't think that's a common assumption. Theists have so many different levels and degrees of belief, regardless of whatever religious affiliation they have. That's just natural. I think that theists (rather than atheists) are more likely to assign everything as black or white... because their faith and belief must be fed by certainty... which the "black or white" categories offer them, yes? And that's why it might be hard if not impossible for an atheist to answer to some theists' mindsets and understanding, because everything must fit into the theist black or white model. An atheist doesn't function like that.

So you assume that theists see everything as black and white, and atheists see everything in shades of grey. That is a demonstration of your thinking that the difference is black and white, not very atheist of you. Where as I see everything in shades of grey, so where does that put me on your scale? BTW, my information comes from watching this program.
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_ ... experience
and I assume that it is representative of their point of view, yours may be different. I tend to believe that people are telling the truth, I don't assume the lie, till proven so.

thedoc wrote:

Lacewing wrote:I think that theists (rather than atheists) are more likely to assign everything as black or white... because their faith and belief must be fed by certainty... which the "black or white" categories offer them, yes? And that's why it might be hard if not impossible for an atheist to answer to some theists' mindsets and understanding, because everything must fit into the theist black or white model. An atheist doesn't function like that.

So you assume that theists see everything as black and white, and atheists see everything in shades of grey. That is a demonstration of your thinking that the difference is black and white, not very atheist of you.

Why are you making an extreme interpretation of what I said? Did you not see the words "are more likely"? Did you not notice my description that said "Theists have so many different levels and degrees of belief, regardless of whatever religious affiliation they have." Does that sound like I have an absolute black and white assessment of theists?

I was trying to make a point as to why nothing that anyone is answering to Immanuel Can fits in his model. I thought the black and white suggestion offered some logic for the conflict in communication, and was worth expressing. Black and white also relates to "right and wrong", "good and bad", etc... which are clearly printed in bold on most theist measuring sticks.

But see, despite my efforts, you seem to have gone to an extreme in interpreting me? Is that because you were offended by what I said? I believe you are shades of gray, Doc! Please don't take it personally. You see... we're talking from different channels in some ways... and it's very difficult to get the words just right. Just like you mis-using "denial" as a description for atheists (which you didn't respond to my notice of).

I appreciate your efforts. I hope you can hear me clearly... and yes, I am being truthful. We deserve kudos for TRYING.

It has been pointed out to Mr Can, on many occasions, that ethics is broadly divided into two types of theory: deontological and consequentialist. In a nutshell, deontological theories include a series of rules and failure to abide by them is defined as immoral by the theory. Consequentialist theories require moral agents to consider the result of their actions in light of the effect on others. Examples of each are found in the bible: the ten commandments are deontological; do unto others as you have them do unto you, is consequentialist.
Mr Can is a deontologist; he believes that god has issued a series of injunctions and it is one's response to those which defines morality. The effect on others is irrelevant.
Since he believes that the word of god is morality, his demand that

Immanuel Can wrote:...a single Atheist shows me a single plausible Atheist reason for a single Atheist moral imperative...

is absurd, because there is no god in atheism.

Immanuel Can wrote:
Still waiting to hear what any Atheist can tell us about moral obligation in his / her worldview

There is no moral obligation within atheism at all but atheists are nevertheless capable of making moral choices
And so it is those choices that determine their sense of morality rather than their non belief in imaginary beings
And if you were ever to give up Christianity you would still be a moral being although one not bound by ideology

surreptitious57 wrote:There is no moral obligation within atheism at all but atheists are nevertheless capable of making moral choices

Well, there's the rub. According to Mr Can atheists cannot make moral choices, because in his view, the only moral choice is whether to obey god or not.

uwot wrote:
According to Mr Can atheists cannot make moral choices because in his view the only moral choice is whether to obey god

Mr Can has reached a conclusion without first determining the validity of the premise which is why he is thinking like this

Immanuel Can wrote:
There must be at least a causal "why," even if you discount the possibility of a teleological one.

Me: And also, you can never answer a 'why?' question, for example if the answer was 'God' we would just move onto 'Why God?'

Analytically incoherent. You can only ask "why" for events that have a beginning...like scientifically, we know that the universe does. We cannot ask, "Why is 2+2 = 4...it's analytic in the nature of what we are positing to be as described. We can argue over its empirical existence, if we wish; but it makes no sense to make irrational and self-contradictory postulates about it, like "a god with a why." It's like "a bachelor with a wife."

'The universe' only has a beginning because we choose to draw a line between two states. So, the universe in the form it exists post Big Bang can be said to have a beginning (and that beginning would be the Big Bang). However if by 'universe' we just mean 'whatever was the case' then it would not have a beginning.

Similarly, to say the universe was started by God is only possible if we start by differentiating God from the universe. But if God is distinct from the universe, then the universe doesn't need God as its creator. Alternatively, if the universe is contained within God, then God did not start it since the universe and God would be the same thing.

So maybe the real question is, "Has God spoken?"

And how would we answer that?

We'd go see if He'd done it.

..since scripture is written (and understood) by humans, why can't it just be humans speaking?

Which "scripture"? For some, it clearly COULD be just humans speaking. But if God has spoken in one or another Scripture, that would be different.

And has he? I gather you find the order of the universe enough to convince you that there is a Creator, but what has formed your idea of that Creator? For example, how do we know whether he is interested or indifferent, whether he wants us to behave in a particular way, and if so, which way?

You seem reluctant to give a clear answer. Is this because this aspect is personal, not the sort of reason that can be argued as true or false?

Me: But how to settle who is right, and who is deluded? You or the Saudi?

I suggest an open court. Let him bring his "god" to the dock, and let the others come as well. Let us see which One stands up to all the tests of integrity, coherence, truthfulness, justice, and so on.

But let us not do this: let us not shut down the argument out of a misguided sense of multiculturalist tolerance. Let's make every view take the test, and make our minds up based on the evidence, back off out of a fear of seeing the evidence.

Leaving aside that the Saudi would say that his God was the same as that of the Christians and the Jews, I do not see how we can place God in the dock. If we were to try him it would have to be against higher standards than his own, which would require a meta-God to act as judge.

Oh, agreed. Did I not already say repeatedly that just because one espouses an ideology -- good or bad -- that does not imply one is following it? ...

The problem with the "No True Scotsman" fallacy is that being Scottish has nothing to do with what one does: but does being a Christian? Think again: for if we say, "No true humanitarian eats babies for lunch," are we guilty of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy? By analytics, surely not: for to be a humanitarian means to have regard for humans, no? And to devour babies for lunch indicates something quite different.

The 'no true Scotsman' analogy is supposed to be about behaviour. No Scotsman would do X - Then what about Hamish? He does X? - Then Hamish is no true Scotsman '. The Muslim says: If Muslims are bad, it is because they are not true Muslims. And if Christians are good, it is because they are not true Christians. It is a tactic open to every religion and none. Why did the Marxist atheist regimes kill so many? Because their communism became 'like a religion'. So that humanitarian who eats babies does not discredit humanitarians, since they were no true humanitarian.

'By their fruits ye shall know them' can be to do the same thing. 'Look at the wicked deeds of those Christians!'. Answer: By their fruits ye shall know them, so they can't be Christians.

I think this is always going to be a problem if we try to use human behaviour as evidence about ideologies. Suppose we did it with philosophy; judged the validity of an argument by the personal character of the philosopher who used it? Besides, the Bible is full of stories about people who did bad things, yet were chosen to serve God's purpose. Perhaps it might be as well to remember: Judge not, that ye be not judged!

Lacewing wrote: Why are you making an extreme interpretation of what I said? Did you not see the words "are more likely"? Did you not notice my description that said "Theists have so many different levels and degrees of belief, regardless of whatever religious affiliation they have." Does that sound like I have an absolute black and white assessment of theists?

I was trying to make a point as to why nothing that anyone is answering to Immanuel Can fits in his model. I thought the black and white suggestion offered some logic for the conflict in communication, and was worth expressing. Black and white also relates to "right and wrong", "good and bad", etc... which are clearly printed in bold on most theist measuring sticks.

But see, despite my efforts, you seem to have gone to an extreme in interpreting me? Is that because you were offended by what I said? I believe you are shades of gray, Doc! Please don't take it personally. You see... we're talking from different channels in some ways... and it's very difficult to get the words just right. Just like you mis-using "denial" as a description for atheists (which you didn't respond to my notice of).

I appreciate your efforts. I hope you can hear me clearly... and yes, I am being truthful. We deserve kudos for TRYING.

As you have said we only have the words on a screen, no facial expression, inflection of tone in the voice, nothing other than the sterile words on the screen.

I was using black and white in the sense that one is either a theist or an atheist, I am well aware of the many different denominations of theists.

FYI, I'm usually not offended by what is posted on a forum, puzzled sometimes but rarely offended.

As far as the use of denial, there are several inflections that can be attributed to the word, indeed much misunderstanding comes from one person useing a word one way and another person hearing that same word and interpreting it another way. The atheists that I have listened to deny that God exists